Think it's "cute" to say you "adopted" a "rescue" who is now your "furkid?" Well, it's not really "cute" at all if you give it some thought.The words we use matter.
Did you know that the state of California passed a law a few years ago that removed the word "pound" or "impound" from all prior animal legislation and replaced it with the word "shelter?" Like it or not, words have definite meanings that affect public opinion and form the cultural zeitgeist. Why do you think they legally changed the word "pound" to "shelter?".....even though they maintain the right to capriciously kill in the so-called "shelter?" Because the name you tag something with forms it's public image. Perception becomes reality.
Animal Rights people co-opting the terminology we use is very dangerous, it's not benign, and it's aimed squarely at legally removing our ownership rights. "Rescue" implies animal abuse. "Adopt" infers a status equal to humans. "Guardian" instead of "owner" means the pet has inherent rights that supercede your right to determine his care and destiny. If pets are "fur kids" the state can step in and mandate how you care for them down to minute details. Kiss your pet ownership rights goodbye.
The "Adopt don't Shop' mantra has been very successful at demonizing breeders. it's time to turn it around! Get a great pet....SHOP! Shopping is a good thing. Most shoppers thoughtfully research before they make a purchase. When it comes to a pet, research prior to purchase is important. Avoid those "adopt-a-thons" where impulse buying is encouraged, and you might just end up with a dog who doesn't suit your lifestyle or home situation. SHOP...and get the dog that is right for you to OWN!!
.
Showing posts with label puppies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label puppies. Show all posts
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Thursday, September 10, 2015
The Big Lie from ASPCA
The ASPCA sent out a post via email blast this week:
Yep, there is no documented history on these animals at all. No way to know what sort of diseases, inherited or acquired, may be lurking. No insight as to inherited temperament. When one of these "rescued" dogs is bought by some big-hearted but dumb, unsuspecting person (like YOU), he is not covered by any "Puppy Lemon Law" protection. That means, when he bites your kid or requires expensive veterinary bills, TOUGH LUCK. You have NO RECOURSE. There is NO GUARANTEE, NO consumer protection, and no financial compensation to you.
But wait! ASPCA doesn't care about any of that....in fact, golly gee gosh! I just realized with a little more reading....they actually aren't talking about Pet Flipping "Rescues" at all.
In fact, pet insurers charge much lower premiums for commercially-bred pet store dogs than they do for dogs from any other source. The reason? Pet store puppies receive more veterinary care in the first weeks of their life than puppies from any other sources, and as a result, the dogs who come from pet store have FEWER INSURANCE CLAIMS.
Got it, ASPCA?? Commercially bred puppies are HEALTHIER than dogs sourced from small breeders and shelters. How do you like them apples, you lying scumbags?
But wait! The ASPCA isn't finished just yet! They set the stage with fraudulent lies, and NOW.... the HOOK!!!
Sorry, you two-faced sheisters at ASPCA, but when you LIE claiming that commercial breeders are not already heavily regulated, claim that their puppies are sickly and abused, and slander the name of dog breeders in general, you won't get a dime from anyone who has two brain cells to rub together.
No breeders=no pets.
The real goal of the ASPCA....PET EXTINCTION.
![]() |
| It'll be a cold day in hell when I donate anything to this group. |
Imagine this scene: More than 100 dazed and frightened puppies are picked up one-by-one out of filthy, cramped, wire cages and crammed into a windowless van. Missing their mothers, they spend a week hurling across Interstate highways—crying, yelping, barking and suffering—until the van pulls up to deliver them through the back-door entrance of a shopping mall pet store. In the pet store, the cute but likely malnourished, impaired, disease-carrying or emotionally scarred pups are left to do what puppies have always done: look for love in a kind, smiling face. They are bought by an unsuspecting person, and the cycle begins again.Wow, this sounds horrible! Why, they just described the cycle of abuse perpetrated by Retail Rescue! This is EXACTLY what happens when so-called "rescues" truck dogs across the country, and subject them to thousands-of-miles-long journeys into the US from around the world! These dogs are intended to replace puppies in pet stores sourced from breeders. And yes, predictably, many of these "rescued" dogs are sick and malnourished. Some have even been infected with RABIES!
Yep, there is no documented history on these animals at all. No way to know what sort of diseases, inherited or acquired, may be lurking. No insight as to inherited temperament. When one of these "rescued" dogs is bought by some big-hearted but dumb, unsuspecting person (like YOU), he is not covered by any "Puppy Lemon Law" protection. That means, when he bites your kid or requires expensive veterinary bills, TOUGH LUCK. You have NO RECOURSE. There is NO GUARANTEE, NO consumer protection, and no financial compensation to you.
But wait! ASPCA doesn't care about any of that....in fact, golly gee gosh! I just realized with a little more reading....they actually aren't talking about Pet Flipping "Rescues" at all.
This is the tragedy of a puppy mill. Animals bred, born and abused in commercial breeding facilities are the very same animals destined for pet store windows in cities and towns all across America. Scenes like this play out week after week, year after year, but these tragic facilities are usually only brought to light when they are raided by animal welfare groups like the ASPCA.Whoa! The ASPCA is trying to convince us that dogs bred by licensed and inspected breeders are all abused! What a crock of manure! If commercial breeders are heavily regulated (and they are), how many do you think need to be "raided"? How many of their puppies are "diseased"? Do they regularly starve and beat their puppies? REALLY??
In fact, pet insurers charge much lower premiums for commercially-bred pet store dogs than they do for dogs from any other source. The reason? Pet store puppies receive more veterinary care in the first weeks of their life than puppies from any other sources, and as a result, the dogs who come from pet store have FEWER INSURANCE CLAIMS.
Got it, ASPCA?? Commercially bred puppies are HEALTHIER than dogs sourced from small breeders and shelters. How do you like them apples, you lying scumbags?
But wait! The ASPCA isn't finished just yet! They set the stage with fraudulent lies, and NOW.... the HOOK!!!
With your support today, we can strengthen our work to advocate against puppy mills. We can assist in raids to expose their cruelties, fight as hard as we can to regulate commercial breeders and, most importantly, find loving homes for every innocent animal. Imagine how much suffering we could stop, and how many dogs, cats and other animals we could save, if we eliminated puppy mills in our country. That is what your gift to the ASPCA can help make possible. Please make a donation right now.
Sorry, you two-faced sheisters at ASPCA, but when you LIE claiming that commercial breeders are not already heavily regulated, claim that their puppies are sickly and abused, and slander the name of dog breeders in general, you won't get a dime from anyone who has two brain cells to rub together.
No breeders=no pets.
The real goal of the ASPCA....PET EXTINCTION.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
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."
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."
Friday, January 24, 2014
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.
"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.
Labels:
animal sales,
animal shelters,
ASPCA,
commercial breeders,
dog adoption,
dog breeding,
dog sales,
hoarding,
humane relocation,
pet overpopulation,
pet store,
puppies,
rescue,
shelter statistics
Thursday, January 23, 2014
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
"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/
Monday, December 30, 2013
KEEP OUR DOMESTIC ANIMALS
We've become accustomed to “White
Lies” from the popular media and from our government. Most of the
time we just laugh and dismiss them as irrelevant. But sometimes,
these lies take on a life of their own.
The response to these three reasons cited includes a revision of rules to require anyone who owns more than four breeding females of any species and who ships pets to even one buyer, must now fall under the licensing requirements of the USDA.
The USDA further admits in their own report that selling directly to the public via the internet is by definition RETAIL. Retail sellers have always been exempt from the AWA. This has been upheld in court! Look up DDAL v. Veneman.
Ag Box 3401
Washington, DC 20250-3401
Freedom of Information & Privacy Act
Legislative and Public Affairs
We can see that the audit itself was a farce, and there is absolutely no validity to the claim of complaints about sellers shipping sick dogs. What about the petition?
Animal Rights "humaniacs" won't stop at redefining retail pet stores and new APHIS rules. They are going to push for an easy score like PUPS regardless of what happens with the new APHIS rules. When that happens, we will have to be on the front lines fighting that atrocity of PUPS as well.
Take, for example, the recent revision
of USDA-APHIS rules. The reasons cited for the revision include:
- Recommendation from an audit from the USDA's Office of the Inspector General (or “OIG”)
- Response to a petition to the White House from supporters of the Humane Society of the US (“HSUS”); and
- Many complaints received by the USDA from consumers who received sick pets after buying “sight-unseen” over the internet.
The response to these three reasons cited includes a revision of rules to require anyone who owns more than four breeding females of any species and who ships pets to even one buyer, must now fall under the licensing requirements of the USDA.
The problem with this is that hobby
breeders, who often own more than four breeding females (particularly with small breeds) and who frequently ship
pets, are generally unable to comply with USDA licensing requirements
meant for commercial breeders, dealers and exhibitors like circuses,
zoos and animal parks.
We don't keep dogs in cement kennels with
impermeable surfaces. Instead our dogs are housed in areas with
grass, carpeting and even upholstered furniture. We don't rely on our
dogs as a primary source of income, so we have a “real” job, and
are not home during business hours to submit to unannounced inspections. We
don't sell in order to make a net profit, and we sure don't have the
money to pay for additional structural modifications and licensing over and above our local
requirements.
A further claim by USDA is that FEW
breeders will be affected...about four thousand at most, they claim.
However, in their own OIG report, they claim that: “more than 80%
of breeders that OIG sampled were not licensed under the Animal
Welfare Act, because they sold pets over the internet and claimed
retail pet store status.”
Make up your mind, which is it? A few
thousand, or 80% of the hundreds of thousands of breeders in the US?
But let's back up a bit. How was this
impeccable USDA OIG research done?
By internet searches. Must have taken a
whole hour-and-a-half one afternoon. Your tax money at work, folks.
OIG report, page 37: “We used two
search engines to identify how many of these breeders were licensed
in two of our eight sampled states. We identified 138 breeders that
had more than 3 breeding females or handled more than 25 dogs a year.
We found 112 of the 138 (81 percent) were not licensed by APHIS. If
the breeders had sold their dogs wholesale (i.e. not retail through
the Internet), they would have needed a license.”
First off, how do you accept at face
value ANYTHING that's simply information gleaned from an
internet website? Someone could embellish their website to include dogs
they bred who are now owned by others. Or,
information could be out of date. People DIE and their websites still
live on.
Most people with common sense contact
sellers, ask for references from previous buyers or from their
veterinarian. They ask for recent photos to be sent to them or ask to
see the dog(s) on skype or Youtube. But not the USDA OIG. Nope, we get our
information the quick, lazy and unreliable way, via GOOGLE.
The plain fact is that it is not possible to know for sure how many dogs a person owns (intact or otherwise) or how many puppies they sell or if they actually do ship dogs, simply based on a website.
The plain fact is that it is not possible to know for sure how many dogs a person owns (intact or otherwise) or how many puppies they sell or if they actually do ship dogs, simply based on a website.
The USDA further admits in their own report that selling directly to the public via the internet is by definition RETAIL. Retail sellers have always been exempt from the AWA. This has been upheld in court! Look up DDAL v. Veneman.
Most all hobby breeders have a website
and sell remotely. That DOES NOT make them terrible, horrible, no good really bad animal exploiters who need
to be regulated by the USDA. In fact, it is a violation of our rights
to personal privacy to have government workers traipsing through our
homes unannounced simply because we have a hobby that involves
breeding our pets.
Then there's the question of sample
size. 138 websites in 8 states? Hardly a representative cross-section
of the nation's breeders.
And HOW do they know that those
breeders whose websites they perused sold even ONE animal
sight-unseen? THEY DON'T.
And even if the web seller in question
did sell pets remotely, SO WHAT??
Ah, but the USDA claims to have
received many complaints about people receiving sick animals when
purchasing and having the pet shipped to them.
See reason #3 above.
My first instinct in reaction to this is to say, BUYER
BEWARE. Do your homework, research the seller and his or her
reputation. Make your purchase thoughtfully. It is YOUR
responsibility to choose your next pet, after all. Not the
government's responsibility to protect you from your own
choices.
But upon reflection, my second instinct
is skepticism. Sick Dogs? WHERE ARE THEY?
PROVE IT!!!
A friend of mine was way ahead of me
there. She wrote to the USDA and demanded that they PROVE their assertion that people are receiving sick dogs when
buying sight-unseen via the Internet. Here is the response she received:
Dear Ms. XXXXX:
This is in response
to your July 16, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for
copies of
complaints
concerning the welfare of dogs and other pets received by APHIS
directly from
members of the
public as referenced in that statement. Your request was received in
this office on
October 13, 2011,
and assigned case number FOIA 12-03007-F.
Animal Care (AC)
employees conducted a thorough search of their files and did not
locate any information
responsive to your request.
AC has informed this
office that they have no records concerning the welfare of dogs
and other pets received by APHIS directly from members of the public
as referenced in the APHIS issued Regulatory Impact Analysis &
Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
Proposed Rule, APHIS-2011-0003 RIN 0579-AD57 because they do not
record complaints
regarding retail sales as it is not an Animal Welfare Act (AWA)
covered activity.
You may appeal our
no record determination. If you chose to appeal, your appeal must be
in writing
and must be received
within 45 days of the date of this letter to the following address:
Administrator
Animal and Plant
Health Inspection ServiceAg Box 3401
Washington, DC 20250-3401
Please refer to FOIA 12-03007-F in your
appeal letter and add the words “FOIA Appeal” to the front of the envelope. To assist the
Administrator in reviewing your appeal, provide specific reasons why
you believe modification of the
determination warranted.
If you have any questions, please
contact Ms. Kacie Edwards of my staff at (301) 851-4084.
Sincerely,
Tonya Woods
DirectorFreedom of Information & Privacy Act
Legislative and Public Affairs
BTW, an appeal was sent but was never
answered. Funny, eh?
So, there is absolutely NO
documentation to support the assertion that even ONE complaint about
internet sellers was ever received by the USDA!
We can see that the audit itself was a farce, and there is absolutely no validity to the claim of complaints about sellers shipping sick dogs. What about the petition?
A petition
by the radical animal rights group the Humane Society of the US was acted upon by the
current administration. Yet what was it that this petition requested? It
requested that “PUPPY MILLS” (a legally undefined entity) that
sell puppies via the internet be regulated under the AWA.
A reasonable reaction to anyone using such an emotion-laden term as "puppy mill" would NOT include lending any sort of consideration to their nonsensical request.
And hey, if you ship a dog and own more than four intact females, now you are automatically a "puppy mill"? Good to know.
A reasonable reaction to anyone using such an emotion-laden term as "puppy mill" would NOT include lending any sort of consideration to their nonsensical request.
And hey, if you ship a dog and own more than four intact females, now you are automatically a "puppy mill"? Good to know.
The current group of USDA-APHIS
licensed breeders are slurred as “puppy mills” by these same
animal rights activists, and laws are being passed in many locales to prevent the puppies from
licensed, inspected breeders to be sold! But these humaniacs want
even MORE breeders regulated under APHIS, so they can agitate to prevent
them from breeding and selling any puppies at all!! Pretty clever tactic,
I'll admit. And in today's current United States of Idiocracy, they
seem to be getting away with it so far.
Oddly enough, major dog organizations...the very
groups that should be on the front lines supporting our rights as
breeders.... have so far refused to challenge these new APHIS rules,
which clearly violate the intent of the Animal Welfare Act by regulating
non-commercial, hobby breeders. Instead, these groups are urging their supporters
to try to seek out loopholes for exemption. If we don't go along with
these new rules, they say, then Congress will pass PUPS and we'll be
in an even worse situation. In fact, these major groups have been cooperating with USDA-APHIS in formulating and implementing the new rules! A horrible betrayal of all of our rights, sadly enough.
Animal Rights "humaniacs" won't stop at redefining retail pet stores and new APHIS rules. They are going to push for an easy score like PUPS regardless of what happens with the new APHIS rules. When that happens, we will have to be on the front lines fighting that atrocity of PUPS as well.
A large group of independent dog breeders and
owners (over 21,000 to date) have decided to mount a legal challenge to these new rules.
You can read more about that process here:
www.keepourdomesticanimals.com
The new USDA-APHIS rules are based on a trifecta of lies....a report cobbled together by the USDA from internet searches, a petition to the White House from the ever-disingenuous HSUS, and the completely unsustantiated claim of "complaints" about sick puppies being shipped to buyers.
www.keepourdomesticanimals.com
The new USDA-APHIS rules are based on a trifecta of lies....a report cobbled together by the USDA from internet searches, a petition to the White House from the ever-disingenuous HSUS, and the completely unsustantiated claim of "complaints" about sick puppies being shipped to buyers.
Please support “KODA” and the
effort to protect our domestic animals from excessive federal
government regulation.
![]() |
| Surely he needs to be regulated by the Federal government! |
Sunday, September 22, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Climate Control
"We" the responsible show breeders deserve to breed our dogs, because we are so, well, AWESOME, right? We pamper our pooches, we lose a ton of money breeding and showing our dogs. We seldom have litters, we screen our homes, we health test, we belong to breed clubs, we are motivated by love, not money.
Yes, we ARE the bees knees!!! But what about those who might have different goals and different purposes from ours? Are they less “worthy” of breeding? We seemingly don't have a problem with laws that limit those unscrupulous "other" breeders. And they may do things that most of us don't do. They sell dogs over the internet, or to "pet shops" or through brokers or they breed their bitches every year. But, we have to STOP assuming that every broker is bad, that pet stores are merchants of greed and horror, that anyone who is motivated by money is necessarily an evil abuser.
Because it's just plain not true.
All dogs are not destined to serve as primarily as "pets", although even those with jobs are usually dearly cherished by their owners. Military working dogs are procured via brokers and breeders who specifically breed for that market. Guide Dogs for the Blind organizations breed dogs for a specific “helpmate” function. They crossbreed, they breed for aptitude, and they certainly have more than one or two litters a year. Dogs used on farms and ranches have jobs to do, and those who are the strongest and smartest and demonstrate the best ability will probably be selected to be bred to provide us with the next generation.
Traditionally, we have had choice. The choice to own a purebred dog, or a mixed breed dog, to breed as we see fit, whether we want a pet litter of "doodles", or a show litter, or a litter to hopefully produce a dog who will excel at a certain function. (Even if that function is catching frisbees). Do we really want the government stepping in and setting up ridiculous breeding rules? Must belong to a breed club, must do X-Y-Z health certification, must not crossbreed, and on and on ad nauseum.
Do we really want the government demanding that we forego the purebred puppy in the pet shop, with a pedigree and a health history, in favor of imported strays with completely unknown backgrounds? Families who want a pet currently can pick up the newspaper want ads and find one to suit their needs (although last time I checked, there were NO pets advertised in our local paper). Should it be illegal to advertise animals over the internet or in newspaper want ads? Should people have to beg permission from the government in order to breed a litter? These are all issues we currently face in today's climate of government control of our hobby.
Animal Rights extremists want to replace puppies resulting from planned litters with unplanned, crossbred street dogs, many of which are from foreign countries. They've already gotten laws passed to make this the ONLY sort of pet found in a pet stores in many localities in California. They want strict government regulation of all breeding in the US. If the side effect of such over-regulation is causing most breeders to give up entirely, that would be dandy with them. If there were no pets in pet stores, or in newspaper ads, or on the internet, it would be "mission accomplished" for these Animal Wrongists.
Patti Page, famous for the songs "Tennessee Waltz" and "How Much is that Doggie in the Window," died January first at a nursing home in Encinitas, California. How different the climate was toward pets in the mid-twentieth century! Purebred puppies were regarded as one of life's treasures. Pet shop puppies went from societies’ darlings to social pariahs, because the Animal Wrongists have convinced the public that surely they are the product of unscrupulous animal abusers.
We need to get past such attitudes. We need to recognize that passing laws intended to eliminate the few "bad apple" breeders will not accomplish that goal, but such laws will eliminate all the great dogs that we love in the process. The show dogs, the working dogs, the mixed breed "doodle" pets, ALL of them! Patti Page was even pressured to re-write her "doggie in the window" song to one that promotes adoption of shelter dogs.
"Dog breeding is a privilege, not a right" someone recently commented on this blog. I think many people are beginning to fall into this sort of mindset. On the contrary, I believe it is our RIGHT to breed our dog, our cat, our bird, our hamster or our farm animals. They belong to us, and it is our right to breed them. And once we give up that right to government control or even to the discretion of dog clubs, then woe betide us.
We are a nation where choice and freedom are supposed to be guarded and cherished. Our freedom to breed in an unrestricted manner and our choice to own the pet that we want should not be determined for us by others who believe that somehow they know best. When we arrive at the "no breeding" goal of animal fanatics, life as we know it will never be the same. We'll be missing a very important part of our heart and soul.
Yes, we ARE the bees knees!!! But what about those who might have different goals and different purposes from ours? Are they less “worthy” of breeding? We seemingly don't have a problem with laws that limit those unscrupulous "other" breeders. And they may do things that most of us don't do. They sell dogs over the internet, or to "pet shops" or through brokers or they breed their bitches every year. But, we have to STOP assuming that every broker is bad, that pet stores are merchants of greed and horror, that anyone who is motivated by money is necessarily an evil abuser.
Because it's just plain not true.
All dogs are not destined to serve as primarily as "pets", although even those with jobs are usually dearly cherished by their owners. Military working dogs are procured via brokers and breeders who specifically breed for that market. Guide Dogs for the Blind organizations breed dogs for a specific “helpmate” function. They crossbreed, they breed for aptitude, and they certainly have more than one or two litters a year. Dogs used on farms and ranches have jobs to do, and those who are the strongest and smartest and demonstrate the best ability will probably be selected to be bred to provide us with the next generation.
Traditionally, we have had choice. The choice to own a purebred dog, or a mixed breed dog, to breed as we see fit, whether we want a pet litter of "doodles", or a show litter, or a litter to hopefully produce a dog who will excel at a certain function. (Even if that function is catching frisbees). Do we really want the government stepping in and setting up ridiculous breeding rules? Must belong to a breed club, must do X-Y-Z health certification, must not crossbreed, and on and on ad nauseum.
Do we really want the government demanding that we forego the purebred puppy in the pet shop, with a pedigree and a health history, in favor of imported strays with completely unknown backgrounds? Families who want a pet currently can pick up the newspaper want ads and find one to suit their needs (although last time I checked, there were NO pets advertised in our local paper). Should it be illegal to advertise animals over the internet or in newspaper want ads? Should people have to beg permission from the government in order to breed a litter? These are all issues we currently face in today's climate of government control of our hobby.
Animal Rights extremists want to replace puppies resulting from planned litters with unplanned, crossbred street dogs, many of which are from foreign countries. They've already gotten laws passed to make this the ONLY sort of pet found in a pet stores in many localities in California. They want strict government regulation of all breeding in the US. If the side effect of such over-regulation is causing most breeders to give up entirely, that would be dandy with them. If there were no pets in pet stores, or in newspaper ads, or on the internet, it would be "mission accomplished" for these Animal Wrongists.
Patti Page, famous for the songs "Tennessee Waltz" and "How Much is that Doggie in the Window," died January first at a nursing home in Encinitas, California. How different the climate was toward pets in the mid-twentieth century! Purebred puppies were regarded as one of life's treasures. Pet shop puppies went from societies’ darlings to social pariahs, because the Animal Wrongists have convinced the public that surely they are the product of unscrupulous animal abusers. "Dog breeding is a privilege, not a right" someone recently commented on this blog. I think many people are beginning to fall into this sort of mindset. On the contrary, I believe it is our RIGHT to breed our dog, our cat, our bird, our hamster or our farm animals. They belong to us, and it is our right to breed them. And once we give up that right to government control or even to the discretion of dog clubs, then woe betide us.
We are a nation where choice and freedom are supposed to be guarded and cherished. Our freedom to breed in an unrestricted manner and our choice to own the pet that we want should not be determined for us by others who believe that somehow they know best. When we arrive at the "no breeding" goal of animal fanatics, life as we know it will never be the same. We'll be missing a very important part of our heart and soul.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Institutionalized Cruelty - the AlphaTex case
Disability as a result of a toe amputation surgery left Mark Smith with some challenges in the day-to-day upkeep of his family-run kennel. Mounting medical bills made life difficult for the Smith family. A soft economy had hurt sales recently and helped to swell the numbers of Collies, Shepherds, and Golden Retrievers at the Smith's AlphaTex Kennels, based in Texas.
The Smiths had all their dogs seized. The evidence for the warrant? Video of a limping puppy. Less-than-perfectly clean conditions were found when the Humane Society of West Texas entered the premises.
Dogs rescued?
Well, not exactly.
When the Humane Society of West Texas entered the property to confiscate the dogs, they killed the puppy that was featured on the video. Reason for the limp? The pup had injured it's leg after tangling with a fence and was recovering. He was due to be adopted by one of the kennel's former employees. Instead of having a chance at a full and happy life, the puppy is now dead.
The "Humane" Society also killed an adult Collie that day, claiming "mange"...in reality, she had hypothyroidism. Coat loss is a common side effect of hypothyroidism. Hypothyroidism is fully treatable and should not be a death warrant for anyone, man or animal. Come to think of it, mange is also a treatable condition. Makes a handy excuse to kill, though.
Another dog had previously been kicked by a horse, suffered a broken leg, and Mark had sought veterinary care. The vet had put a pin in her leg. She was improving. Improving, that is, until the "humane" society raided the premises and decided to kill her that day.
The Smiths did not give permission to the Humane Society of West Texas to kill any of their dogs, or to take and farm them out to foster homes across the state of Texas. But that's exactly what happened.
A litter of eight puppies was taken into custody. Great! They would get proper veterinary care and attention. Right?
Wrong again. Under the "loving" care of the Humane Society veterinarian, seven of the eight puppies subsequently died of parvo.
With adequate veterinary care and IV hydration/nutrition, the death rate from parvo is very low; certainly nowhere near the 88% from this litter that perished.
Unless, of course, you are a veterinarian employed by the state-sponsored raiders, who, once in court, will try to deflect the blame for the deaths onto the breeder.
The prosecuting attorney presented only limited evidence that seemed to be extremely biased. It must have seemed that way to the jury as well, because they threw out all the charges. All the dogs are now slated for return to the Smiths.
The jury was instructed by the judge that they could assess each case of cruelty individually. The jury still found no evidence of cruelty.
None.
No credible evidence that even one dog was abused, neglected or otherwise mistreated.
Except, that is by the Humane Society of West Texas. Unfortunately, they were not the ones on trial.
In typical animal extremist fashion, the prosecuter tried to turn the trial into a referendum on breeding.
"They kept big dogs alive so they could have little dogs to sell"
he stated in court.
So now, the not-so-subtle implication is that SELLING DOGS is a criminal offense. Since when, exactly?
The prosecutor objected to a binder of photos and information showing the conditions and care provided in the kennel over the 18-month period prior to the seizure.
Incredibly, this prosecutor also belongs to a Facebook group devoted to publicly libelling the Smiths. Further proof of the animal rights extremist lynch-mob mentality in this case. Not to mention, a breach of ethics.
But why expect any ethics here? You see, it was never about good care for the dogs, it was always about removing them from a "greedy, evil breeder". At any cost. Hang the consequences.
The defense attorney admitted that conditions were not tip-top in cleanliness, but felt that the Smiths should have been given some sort of warning to improve prior to the situation devolving into a raid.
Obviously, killers don't like to give any advance notice or fair warning.
The lawyers who defended the Smiths did so on a pro bono basis, and there is a federal case pending. PLEASE dog lovers, dog breeders, and dog owners, dig into your pocketbooks and send a donation via Paypal to:
Next time you may need someone to help get YOUR dogs back.
Or maybe, just maybe, these renegade animal raiders will think twice in the future before trampling all over someone's human rights, and nabbing and killing their dogs.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Banning pet shop animal sales
I was recently asked this question:
"Why would you oppose a ban on pet shop sales? One would think you'd support such a ban."
A more interesting question might be why one would think we should support such a ban?
Two reasons spring to mind.
(1) You believe that there is an overpopulation of pets, and that the breeding for sale of dogs and cats contributes to this overpopulation, or
(2) You believe that the dogs sold in pet stores (or their parents) are mistreated.
We know that both (1) and (2) are essentially false.
The myth of pet overpopulation (1) has been thoroughly debunked. (See links to references below).
As for (2), dog breeding, transportation and sale are heavily regulated --
at the federal level, by the Animal Welfare Act, and
at the state level by the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act (H&S Code, Sec. 122045, et seq.),
Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act (H&S Code, Sec. 122125, et seq.) and
the animal cruelty statutes (Penal Code Sec. 597, et seq.).
As a result, purchasers at pet shops can determine the history of the dogs offered for sale and be assured of the standards of care in which the pet was bred, raised and sold. Violators of these laws are subject to civil and criminal penalties.
Given the protection and disclosure required for the sale of dogs in pet shops, why would I support a ban on pet shop sales?
Education, not legislation, is ultimately the most effective weapon against impulse buying. While I believe the wisest choice is to purchase a dog or cat directly from an ethical hobby breeder, some people choose to obtain a pet from a pet store. Others may select a pet from a shelter or rescue group.
Sales bans usually exempt animals obtained from "rescues" and shelters. Such bans create an artificial market for "rescued" dogs, to be filled by black market suppliers who breed underground or outside the continental US.
Laws and policies that ban the sales of purposely-bred dogs send an extremely negative message about dog breeding. We would be foolish to perpetuate such negative stereotypes and misperceptions.
Mom-and-pop pet stores find it difficult to compete with the Pet Smarts and the PetCos, and even more difficult to compete without the ability to sell pets. We know that these days it is difficult for any business to remain afloat. We have even seen organized protests, threats and intimidation used against businesses selling pets. This type of activity is in violation of the Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act. There's also a section in the California Penal Code (Section 602.1) that makes it unlawful for any person to intentionally interfere with any lawful business by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on the business or their customers.
Isn't it ironic that anyone would consider banning the sales of pets, yet no one is suggesting that we ban the sale of pet foods containing toxic ingredients that have killed these same pets? What has happened to our priorities? Are we allowing the animal extremist groups like HSUS and PETA determine what our priorities should be?
We have become a nation bent upon controlling every action of our citizens. When perfectly legal possessions like pets are legislated into contraband items comparable to street drugs, we have to wonder where it will all end. Pet extinction, perhaps?
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
Plato
Friday, December 30, 2011
Pups Act Gets Obama Support
NEWS
PUPS ACT GETS OBAMA APPROVAL
The HSUS's petition for the PUPS act has met with a nod of approval from the OBAMA administration.
Humane Society Petition: http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2011/10/puppy_mills_petition_white_house_100311.html
The Response from the White House:
Improving Regulation and Oversight of Commercial Breeders
By Rebecca Blue, USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Thank you for signing a petition on the We the People platform asking the Obama Administration to "crack down on puppy mills."
The Obama Administration is committed to ensuring that USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which enforces the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), improves its regulation and oversight of commercial breeders. APHIS is currently developing proposed regulations that would ensure that Internet breeders provide their animals with care and treatment that meets the AWA standards. APHIS plans to publish its proposed rule covering Internet breeders in the Federal Register for public comment in 2012. We encourage interested citizens to provide their feedback on the rule at that time; comments can be logged at Regulations.gov.
APHIS is also moving forward with an enhanced AWA enforcement plan to improve its oversight of currently licensed dealers, breeders, and other entities regulated under the AWA (particularly those who are repeat violators). It is also working to improve the performance of its inspectors.
Additionally, in September 2011, USDA proposed a new rule that when finalized will help ensure that dogs imported into the United States for resale are in good health, are at least 6 months of age, and have received their proper vaccinations. Among other things, this proposed rule is designed to prevent the importation of puppies that have not yet been weaned or have fully developed immune systems, or are sick.
Stay Connected
Stay connected to the White House by signing up for periodic email updates from President Obama and other senior administration officials.
|
Under PUPS, anyone with ownership or co-ownership of ONE intact bitch qualifies to be examined. That means EVERY BREEDER. Then APHIS will scrutinize how many dogs or puppies you and co-owners have placed or sold in a year. If at or over that number, you must comply with reams of AWA commercial rules and regs that are impossible to meet in a home environment, like keeping dogs on nonporous surfaces. Right now the number needed to be sold.....or OFFERED for sale.....is 50, but HSUS has admitted they intend to ratchet down such numbers with future amendments.
The PUPS bill does NOT apply to commercial breeders, they already fall under APHIS regulations. An "Internet seller?" How many breeders have a WEBSITE? You are now an "internet seller." Make no mistake about it, the intent is to bring every dog breeder under Federal control.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Where'd You Get That Puppy?
This article originally appeared in the December 9, 2011 issue of Dog News. It is posted here by permission of the author.
Where’d You Get That Puppy?
Carlotta Cooper
Have you ever noticed how many cute, Toy breed puppies seem to be available for adoption in the northeast/New England area? Does that strike you as odd when shelters in the South and other places say they have too many mixed breed dogs, a shortage of cute puppies, too many big, black Lab mixes that no one wants, and lots of pit bull mixes (sorry, Jan Dykema, “bully breed” mixes)? Why are there so many desirable Toy breed puppies in shelters in the northeast and so many undesirable dogs elsewhere?
There could be several reasons why the northeast has cute, Toy breed puppies when some other parts of the country don’t.
It’s been true for quite a while that puppies are usually “adopted” first at animal shelters. (And, by “adopted,” of course, we mean sold for several hundred dollars with lots of strings attached.) For years puppies have been in short supply because they are cute and cuddly and when many families think of adopting a dog, they automatically think they want to adopt a puppy. And Toy breeds seem to be in even higher demand than other breeds. Just look at the AKC’s list of breeds by registrations. At least half of the top 20 breeds are Toy or small-breed (under 20 pound) dogs, and small breeds are gaining in popularity every year. French Bulldogs, Cavaliers, Brussels Griffons, Norwich Terriers, and Papillons have all shown enormous increases in the last decade.
“Humane Relocation”
After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, rescue groups seem to have become aware of the fact that they could network nationally and send dogs around the country anywhere they wanted to send them. And they didn’t have to be overly concerned about the owners of the dogs emerging to track them down. At the time, it was believed that the rescue groups were acting altruistically, “saving” dogs made homeless by disaster whose owners were probably dead, even though some owners came forward later to track their pets down and demand them back. This led to a number of court cases which usually resulted in the dogs being returned to the original owners. It also showed up the fact that the rescue groups kept amazingly poor records about the dogs, where they were found and where they were sent; and that they did not try to help the dogs get back to their original owners, even when the dogs had microchips or other identifying information.
Since that time, rescue groups have greatly expanded these efforts at so-called “humane relocation,” to the point that they are now often accused of stealing dogs right out of people’s yards. Following the horrific tornado in Joplin, Missouri, in May 2011, hundreds of dogs were taken into the local shelter and many were sent out of state to be adopted by strangers instead of the local rescue groups holding the dogs longer for them to be reclaimed by their owners. The same thing happened following the outbreak of tornadoes in the South in April 2011. Dogs were scooped up and sent to shelters out of state instead of local groups working to reunite them with their owners. Purebred, mixed breed, intact dogs, spayed and neutered. Just dogs in general taken out of their community and sent to out-of-state shelters for adoption.
In some cases, animal rescue workers have even been caught taking animals out of people’s yards when their homes had not been struck by disaster. Following an outbreak of bad weather or flooding, they may have seen a dog chained in his yard, or thought a dog looked like he needed help in some other way, and simply took the dog. That’s putting a charitable spin on the event. In some cases rescuers simply stole dogs from their owners. Sometimes they were not caught in the act, but the dog was later discovered missing and had been “adopted” out to someone in another state. The owners had to plead or go to court to try to get their pets back because of the overzealousness of these “rescuers” who took it upon themselves to play God and decide that the original owner didn’t deserve to keep his dog.
In November a Bulldog named Samson was stolen from his family’s backyard in Vancouver. Police have recommended that two women, Janet Olson and Louise Reid, from A Better Life Dog Rescue, be charged with theft in the case. Olson had already been charged with theft in connection with another dog stolen in April 2011. Police believe the two women were behind a number of other dognappings in which they dressed up in “very official-looking” uniforms emblazoned with the words “Animal Welfare.” According to RCMP Cpl. Drew Grainger, "This investigation quickly revealed Olson and Reid were operating their charitable not-for-profit organization beyond the scope of its mandate and allegedly unlawfully acting beyond their goodwill intentions.”
Grainger said officers watched in an undercover operation as Olson and Reid entered a family's backyard dressed in bogus uniforms and then tried to leave with the family's pet. The women were immediately arrested. Police haven't been able to determine all the reasons why Olson and Reid were allegedly stealing dogs, he said. But they believe the motive may have been the adoption fees the pair collected for placing the stolen animals in new homes.
Dognapping
The line between rescuers who rescue dogs that don’t need rescuing and people who simply steal dogs is a thin one, but there has been an increase in dog theft, according to the AKC. Judging by the reports of stolen dogs online, dog theft is happening all over the U.S. and Canada. And the favorite target of dog thieves is a litter of cute Toy breed puppies, presumably because they can be sold later, individually, for lots of money, and no one will think of asking if the puppies are stolen.
According to Lisa Peterson of the AKC, "We are getting reports almost daily of pets stolen during home invasions, out of parked cars while people are running errands and even snatched from dog lovers out for a walk in the park.”
According to the most recent national statistics available from the American Kennel Club — based on customer and media reports — in the first seven months of the year, 224 pets had been reported stolen, compared to 150 pets in the same period in 2010.
In Delaware at the end of November, a 5-week-old litter of Shih Tzu puppies was stolen from Lisa Ganc’s home while she was out running errands. The thieves left behind more valuable electronics, jewelry, and other items that might interest a thief. Five days earlier a litter of 10 Cane Corso puppies, also 5-weeks-old, had been stolen near Townsend.
In Buena Park, California, thieves broke through the window to steal three Yorkshire Terrier puppies and an adult Yorkie named Staci owned by Linda Bush. Staci (not the mother) has a long list of medical problems and needs medication. One story about the missing puppies blames the recession for all the dog thefts and mentions that in one case a gang burst into a home and stole six Yorkies at gunpoint. According to the Internet story, two of Linda Bush’s puppies were recovered after the owner put up posters offering a reward and two people were arrested on suspicion of burglary. But one puppy and Staci are still missing.
Are some of these stolen puppies ending up in rescues and shelters?
My friend in Setters, Jay Kitchener, thinks so. Jay is the AKC Legislative LIaison to the Gordon Setter Club of America, as well as the Secretary & Editor of the Federation of Maine Dog Clubs. He’s one of the hardest working guys in purebred dogs and he follows anti-breeding laws and other legislation, rescues and shelters, and dog imports, to name just a few of the dog issues that keep him busy.
According to Jay, “As regressive and draconian anti-breeding laws put the brakes on purebred dog breeders nationwide, we can expect there to be more and more dog thefts in the future. The economy has had an effect...with thieves seeing potential big money in a nice purebred dog, particularly if it is visible in a car...Easy money for some, and 'rescue' for others, as individuals...make themselves into cop, judge and jury — claim your dog is being abused or neglected by their standards, needing 'rescue.' People need to investigate, but usually they only see halos on people who claim to be 'rescuers' — a shame, isn't it.”
Breeding for Rescue?
Some people have also pointed out how very fortuitous it is that so many 8-10 week-old Toy breed puppies seem to always be available for adoption at New England shelters. What a wonderful coincidence, isn’t it? Or, is it? Could there possibly be some rescues and shelters who are intentionally breeding puppies to meet the demand for cute Toy and small breed puppies?
There is, without doubt, at least one person who operates as a “rescue” and who posts on her web site that she breeds her dogs to have puppies for sale so she can have more money to rescue other dogs. I used to have her URL but I don’t have it anymore. She was quite open about what she was doing, even if it was probably a silly idea in terms of making money.
But, are there really any rescues and shelters around who are breeding Toy and small breed dogs in order to have a supply for “adoptions”? Keeping in mind that these puppies are often “adopted” for $350 and up at rescues and shelters these days. That’s harder to answer. It does seem suspicious that some shelters in the northeast, which have been practically put out of business by MSN and anti-breeding laws, have a constant supply of these cute puppies at just the perfect age that people want them, don’t you think?
Let’s think about where rescues and shelters might get their breeding dogs. There were certainly lots of breeder raids between 2007 and 2009, when HSUS was pushing strongly for their puppy mill/commercial breeder bills in so many states. We know that many Toy and small breed dogs were taken from breeders in these raids. Some from commercial breeders, some from places with genuinely bad conditions. But some dogs were taken from better breeders and there were also some nice dogs taken (in my estimation) from hobby breeders. Were ALL of these dogs spayed and neutered and adopted out to the public? Or, were any of them retained for breeding purposes? Since 2009 there have been far fewer breeder raids prompted by HSUS as they have turned their attention away from puppy mills/commercial breeders and toward other initiatives. They were tied up in Missouri for quite a while (way to go Missouri!). But there have been occasional raids and Toy and small breed dogs continue to be taken from time to time, across the country.
IF there were people who wanted to supply rescues and shelters with cute, highly adoptable Toy and small breed puppies, it would have been quite easy to keep some of the better breeding dogs taken during these raids and keep breeding them during the last few years. They would have had their pick of Toy breeds. I do say “if” because I don’t have proof that this is happening.
But let’s also ask about the pregnant bitches who were taken during these raids. Did they go full-term and deliver their litters? What happened to those puppies? Were they kept or put up for adoption? It seems there is rarely any follow-up with that kind of information following a raid.
I am not particularly prone to conspiracy theories and I do look for facts and evidence, but I can’t get away from the fact that certain shelters do seem to have a steady supply of desirable puppies at just the right age that people want to “adopt.”
I find it hard to believe that there is a constant stream of dog owners who have “oops” litters of cute Toy puppies and they just bring them into the shelters to drop off. First, we’re talking about New England and I’m always told what wonderful dog laws they have there and how responsible all the dog owners are. So, they wouldn’t be having all of those “oops” litters. And, second, I have a feeling that if a dog owner has a litter of cute Toy breed puppies, they would be smart enough to know that those puppies are valuable. They wouldn’t just drop them off at a shelter. They would sell them themselves. Those New Englanders are pretty sharp, right?
So, we still have the question of where the New England shelters are getting all of those darling little Toy and small breed puppies.
Importation
Now, my friend Jay Kitchener has this to say:
“From 2005 thru 2010 Maine saw so much anti-breeder legislation passed that the extremely radical Animal Legal Defense Fund now rates Maine's laws as second best in the nation. We were told by the supporters of this regressive legislation that it must be passed "because of the horrible dog overpopulation." Now we learn that during those same years shelters and rescues brought over 30,000 dogs to Maine to sell tax-free. Today we have a story of rescues stealing dogs from homes to sell tax-free. Tell me again about "dog overpopulation." Go ahead. Tell me.”
30,000 dogs between 2005 and 2010. That’s a lot for one state, especially a state that doesn’t have a large population, to absorb. (The entire population of Maine is only about 1,328,000, according to the 2010 Census.) In fact, Maine has taken in so many dogs that their State Vet is urging caution in adopting pets from groups that don’t have permits.
Maine requires that all dogs imported into the state receive a list of vaccinations for such diseases as canine distemper, hepatitis and canine parvo at least 14 days prior to their arrival in the state. Additionally, dogs are required to be quarantined for between two and five days — depending on the age of the animal — so that they can be monitored for sickness.
Approved rescue organizations have a track record of following these rules, but there are many other rescues who may not. Some “rescues” operate out of a van or only exist on the Internet. Good rescues, on the other hand, may take dogs north that are healthier than the local dogs that are turned into shelters in Maine.
I should say that I have one veterinarian friend who was under the impression that vets there, who were working with shelters, resented the fact that they were being asked to do spay/neuters on imported dogs. Seems they had originally agreed to do spay/neuters on shelter dogs and then, well, 30,000 dogs came to the state from elsewhere. I suppose that might be grounds for becoming unhappy about the importations.
Other northeastern states have taken strong actions against so many dogs being imported into their states from Southern shelters. Connecticut and the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association have pushed for regulation of dogs imported into their state:
“Thus continued unregulated animal importation exposes Connecticut animals to disease, is unfair to citizens surprised by undisclosed medical issues and the costs to treat these, is inhumane To Connecticut source animals by decreasing their chance of adoption and shifts the cost of animal control activities from other states to our state. HB 5368 will allow animal health officials to control animal importation, prevent disease transmission, help ensure humane transport standards, protect Connecticut animal owners and animals, reduce Connecticut animal control costs and minimize the surrender of newly imported animals. Thank you.”
From that same testimony by the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association, which referred to pet rescue as an “industry,” came this fascinating statement:
“Indeed, some animals are bred specifically for transport and characterization of these animals as needing rescue is misleading.”
So, while I am reluctant to make that accusation without more proof, the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association does make that claim. There may be dogs being intentionally bred to be sold as rescue/shelter dogs.
So, dogs are being imported into New England states from elsewhere, and some in the states are not happy about it. There are many cute Toy and small breed puppies, which is hard to explain. Some of the dogs may be pilfered by rescues; some dogs may be stolen; some may be intentionally bred; but what kind of dogs are being sent north by the shelters in the South?
In early December, in Birmingham, Alabama, the Greater Birmingham Humane Society took possession of 57 Chihuahuas from their breeder. According to a news release from the GBHS, “Due to rising costs and a struggling economy, the owner is no longer able to care for these animals.” Although the GBHS tries to pass this event off as an owner who is having problems because of the economy, it occurs to me that a breeder with 57 Toy dogs, many of them likely to be puppies which would sell well at Christmas, probably had to be coerced into parting with his dogs. The article says that “many” of the dogs were five years old or older...and many weren't. No specific numbers are given.
Half of the dogs were going to eventually be taken by North Shore Animal League to their facility in Port Washington, New York. Ah, yes. Another northeastern destination. Were the youngest and cutest of the Chihuahuas headed there? Is this how northeastern shelters keep themselves stocked with cute Toy breed puppies? Due to the efforts in other states to force breeders to surrender dogs? The local adoption fee for the Chihuahuas who remain in Birmingham will be $150. It's a good bet that the dogs that end up in Port Washington, New York, with the North Shore Animal League will command a much higher fee.
Actions like this one aren't called “raids” now. Instead, local pressure is brought to bear on breeders to make them surrender their dogs under the color of law. But the result is the same. Shelters and rescues are making money by forcing breeders to give up their puppies and dogs and fooling the public into believing that they are acting out of love for the dogs.
In one article, which I consider representative, 40 Young-Williams dogs head to barren New England shelters, 40 dogs were being sent to New England shelters. Out of those 40 dogs, 24 were adult dogs and 16 were puppies. The dogs were headed to Massachusetts and Connecticut.
“If the experience goes well, Northeast Animal Shelter in Salem, Mass., has agreed to take 40 to 50 animals a month from Young-Williams.”
Could this kind of program account for all of the cute puppies in northeastern shelters? How many similar relationships does each shelter have? How many puppies do they take in and adopt out each month? We would need to know figures like that in order to form a better idea about the sources of the puppies for these shelters. But I think it seems obvious that there are a lot of loose ends and unanswered questions about where these puppies are coming from. I think it’s possible that shelters in the South are cherrypicking the dogs and puppies they send to northeastern shelters. They may be sending them an excess of cute Toy and small breed puppies, leaving people in the South with large breed adult dogs to adopt, older dogs, and other dogs that most people consider less desirable. Everyone wants a cute puppy, whether we like it or not.
I think we need to find out more information about how these puppies are supplied, who makes the decisions, and whether or not there really are dogs being bred specifically for “adoption” by rescues and shelters. We are constantly told that we have a dog overpopulation problem. We fight MSN attempts and laws against breeding. Serious dog breeders are vilified. If there are people who are breeding dogs for rescues and shelters so they can sell them for more money, we need to find out and make it stop. Rescues and shelters have already become too much like pet stores. But breeding so they have inventory is going too far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)








