"The Enemy Within"

 

The Enemy Within: AKC Registration Numbers as Barometer of Public Opinion

by Marge Kranzfelder

(reprinted here with author's permission)

Please keep in mind my perspective. It comes from working in the rank and file within the sport of dogs attempting to assist in keeping it viable in today's society. It is one of respect for the AKC. The AKC has established and maintained a uniform method of competition across our large nation. Its record-keeping has kept pace with modern technology. These functions reflect its mission statement. My writing while critical comes with the hope that the AKC will do what it takes so that future generations are able to enjoy the pleasure and contentment that sharing lives with canines brings. My concerns in recent years about the AKC's future were further crystallized by Ron Menaker's September 2008 Chairman's Report.

I am the second generation of my extended family involved in the sport of dogs. I have been raised in awe of those true "dog" men and women that have dedicated their lives, talent and seamless blend of learned and instinctual knowledge to canine endeavors. The AKC's own "breeding program" is not producing these exceptional caretakers in the number they once were. I grew up during the '50's when the word breeder was a term of respect. It was a profession you wanted to aspire to, not be apologetic about in general society.

Yes, our society is rapidly evolving. Though well intended, AKC's actions are more reactive than proactive. The writing was clearly on San Mateo's wall in 1990. By AKC's reaction to outside forces, they have turned up the heat on the people that were their support base. While having high morals standards within should be something expected and continually strived for, they should have quickly provided the public a real reason for joining in the sport, believing in the joy of pure-bred animals and really worked at making it easier to maintain a breeding program in today's life-style.

Allow me to state a few of the obvious reasons, people are no longer actively breeding dogs and dedicating their lives to this activity.

•Two people in a household need to work outside the home. This doesn't leave time to raise puppies and take care of multiple dogs.

•Limit laws prevent an active breeding establishment. Breeding one champion to one champion may produce a champion but it does not define a breeding program that will improve the breed.

•Air travel is being hampered by laws, expenses, public attitude toward dogs and increasingly intrusive security scrutiny.

•Cost of showing has increased. There are more shows with less leisurely quality time spent there.

•Veterinarians, influenced by those against breeding, discriminate against breeders or particular breeds. Veterinarian costs have increased greatly while the local veterinarian's average reproductive knowledge declined.

•Breeders are not valued by the general public.

Placing more arbitrary standards on those within the sport can be compared to the education of our children in this country. Requiring more testing doesn't really equate with better education. We must find the way to inspire and create curiosity so that individuals are self-motivated to be educated. If we educate well, the student will test well. However, conversely, if a student tests well doesn't imply he has necessarily been well educated.

The analogy applies to the artificial promotion of health testing and care regulations as "gold standards". Testing for testing sake shouldn't be the end goal. Of course, we want people to care for their animals and do the best health and genetic screenings available. This should be morally promoted and accepted practice. Standards of care shouldn't be to impress the public; they should exist because it is morally right and efficacious. The public naturally expects this. Therefore this should not be relied upon to create public incentive to own a purebred.

Promoting purebreds supersedes promoting purebreds that have passed a string of testing. The soft, fuzzy love of owning a purebred is why someone wants to purchase a purebred. Their true companionship and life benefiting love is why they keep those purebreds. The "soft-sell" emotional commercial models are the ones to probably consider primary. We don't need movies the likes of Disney's 101 Dalmatians nor the up-coming Beverly Hills Chihuahua to spike registration numbers; but we could use the promotion of devoted, purposeful individuals integrated into a modern day life-style, a current Lassie, Rin-tin-tin, and Old Yeller figuratively, to keep us company. Smoltzy, yes. But it cuts to the core of human motivation.

Two unintended negative consequences of making the "gold standard" of health testing a primary public strategy must be addressed. The reflected increased costs per puppy prohibit both breeding and then purchasing puppies. Either the public is then convinced to go to their shelters to obtain a mixed breed that does not have this expense to cover; or they now expect guarantees on a puppy for its full life that only a plush toy could offer.

A conclusion can be drawn that if care and testing standards are written in a reactionary manner to animal rights pressure, we have allowed them to set us up for failure. No finite list of acceptable results on tests can assure that a puppy will be healthy and desirable. Like the above education analogy, the AKC must inspire and instill in its breeders the desire to morally use every possible tool to produce a desirable dog to the best of the breeder's ability.

I realize the concept of how to "inspire and instill" morals is a difficult one. It is one of motivation. Today's trend in legislative restrictions adds many additional constraints onto breeders. If the AKC adds further regulation in attempts to "prove itself", it invites the real danger of snuffing the creativity of those truly gifted individual thinkers. I believe that one of the strong incentives to being a breeder is to have a hobby that is continually challenging while utilizing creativity and problem solving abilities.

An activity that is highly regulated will not attract a gifted individual. The end result of over-regulation is mediocrity. AKC should explore the concepts employed by Genentech, Google, think-tanks and innovative research facilities. This could help explain the decease of higher echelon participants in this sport.

At first I was disappointed that my children's generation isn't anxious to get involved in dog competition. Then I worried about where my grandchildren, when they become adults, will be able to purchase a family pet.

Unfortunately, I am now worried about whether they will even consider owning one, especially considering an AKC purebred. The AKC's public relations campaign addressing the reasons to want to share your life with a purebred is too little and far too late. From advice given from experience in ring competition, the AKC shouldn't concentrate so much on the competitor (other registries, designer breeds, etc.). Instead the AKC must concentrate on improving its own excellence! There is a passion in those that succeed. The uniqueness of successfully accomplishing its goals will then bestow recognition.

Another way of stating this is if the people involved within the sport are truly enjoying what they do and receiving personal benefits, others will want to join in. The AKC has much ground to make up against the animal rights lobby. It must attack this far more aggressively. It must find its terrier within!

Until the AKC finds ways to push back against those forces, by finding ways to encourage and make a breeder's life legal, more desirable, and a respected part of society, its registration numbers will continue to decline. Until the AKC increases the activities that a normal working family can engage doing with their dog and encourage public places to be accessible and acceptable to people with dogs, its registration numbers will continue to decline. Until the AKC gives people reason to keep a registered purebred and/or rescuing another in just about every home, its registration numbers will continue to decline.

Since every organization needs fiscal soundness to survive, I have one further observation to make regarding the survival of AKC. I will address Ron Menaker's noble comment concerning down-sizing. So far, the effort has been a beginning token. I'm sure there are corporate models that have successfully re-organized in order to survive which can inspire a more extensive expense cut-back. Flat line expenses can only balance flat line revenue. Until there is not a revenue problem, the balance solution remains the expense problem. Taking the advice we promote with breeders, selectivity is a main tool to achieve your goal.

The Board can respond, "But we have tried all that". They have expanded their income base with parentage testing. They have fostered more programs than just breeding/conformation, recognizing the new revenue possibilities that activities like agility and rally have provided. They have fostered public education days, breeder recognition awards and televised dog shows.

My intent is not to berate the AKC. I have done my very best to keep positive over the years and help in whatever capacity I am able; however, to be silent with these concerns would be tantamount to not helping. Until the AKC addresses some of the core directional issues I have mentioned, I question its ability to turn the present situation around.

Obviously with the continued decline in registrations, the AKC will not be able to continue to sustain our beloved sport of dogs. Registration numbers should be considered the barometer of public opinion of the value of an AKC registered dog. The "Gold Standard". If a major redirection is not considered, I fear that, like the US dollar, the AKC won't be worth a silver certificate.

Respectfully,

Marge Kranzfelder

Pomeranian Charitable Trust, Founding Trustee

American Pomeranian Club, President 2005-2006

American Pomeranian Club AKC Delegate 1999-2004

American Pomeranian Club Life Member

Northern California Pomeranian Club, Board Member

The Animal Council, Treasurer

San Mateo County Animal Task Force, 1991

__._,_.___

---

Busy Bees in the "Beehive State"

Dateline: December, 2010.

A notice is sent out from the AKC legislation department. It seems that Salt Lake County, Utah, is proposing numerous regulations for dog breeders. The most problematic concerns were:

              Definition of "Volume Dog Breeder" – As currently written, a "volume dog breeder" is anyone who whelps more than one litter of dogs in a 12-month period. Anyone who falls under this       definition must be licensed and inspected each year.

  

       Unannounced Inspections – The proposal requires an annual inspection, but also allows inspections "upon receipt of a complaint or on [the division's] own motion." This allows arbitrary inspections at any time during business hours at the discretion of the county's Animal Services Division. There is no requirement that complaints be substantiated prior to inspection.

·        Problematic Standards of Care – All dogs must be provided constant and unfettered access to an indoor enclosure with solid floors. There are no exceptions for other types of safe, sanitary flooring. 

Concerned dog owners attend the hearings. Sady, the measure passes.....but wait! The story has not ended.

Fast forward to March, 2011.

I receive a note from a friend in Salt Lake County. Seems the locals have taken matters into their own hands. Generally, this is appropriate and necessary action to address draconian legislation when it is proposed in your area.  A group of dog people, including kennel club officials and judges, have worked with the county animal services department to help revise this ordinance. It will be presented Tuesday, March 29th, for a second reading and possible final vote. If approved, it will take effect within 15 days. You can find the text of the proposed ordinance here:

http://animalservices.slco.org/pdf/revisedBreederOrdinance.pdf

The proposal requires EVERY BREEDER to be licensed and inspected annually. More inclusive than what was originally proposed. One change for the better; the inspections cannot be unannounced. Otherwise, this isn't really anything that could be considered an improvement from the original proposal.

You can register as a breeder up to a week after the litter is born, but what if you are denied the breeding permit? What then? At the mercy of the AC? What exactly is involved with the inspection? There are no guidelines in the ordinance for said inspection....so I guess it's whatever the AC people at the time decide it is. Maybe cobwebs in the corner will be a reason to deny? Crumbs about from the food dishes? Who knows?

Breeders who belong to a breed club with an ENFORCED code of ethics can obtain a free five-year license. How can clubs force adherence to a code of ethics? Per AKC, they can't. Codes of ethics are unenforceable; they are GUIDELINES. But, if the club doesn't figure out a way, they will not be allowed to participate for two years, leaving all the members out of the special free breeding license program. They must have derived this idea of the enforced code of ethics from the LA ordinance. LA, years later, still hasn't yet figured out how to handle that issue.

The breeding license is free for a club member, but how much is this breeding license for those who do not belong to a club? What about dogs raised for service, or for farm work, or for hunting, or the many other reasons people breed dogs other than as a conformation show hobby?

To qualify for the free five-year license, you must follow the breed-specific recommendations for health testing. So now all these "guidelines" that we as breeders have set up for ourselves as goals for best practice are going to be enshrined in the law? So if you breed a bitch or dog with less than perfect health scores, but perhaps other wonderful qualities where does that leave you? Up that proverbial creek without a paddle. Few dogs have absolutely perfect health, but testing is recommended to try to work toward improvement. Certainly, testing is not any ironclad guarantee of absence of genetic health problems. These are not widgets we are producing, they are living, breathing creatures with unpredictable genetic recombination and many imperfections.

A breeder MUST take back a dog at any time during its lifetime? Yes, most do, but why should it be written up as a law? What if your circumstances change and you cannot take back a dog or find it a new home, what then? Why is it deemed a seller's job to find a new home when the new owner decides he is tired of the dog, or is getting a divorce, or someone is allergic, or the dog is injured and needs expensive surgery, or a myriad of other troublesome scenarios?

"Appropriate preventative and therapeutic veterinary care is provided". Who decides what that means? All on a whim, no doubt, depending on whether or not you are liked or disliked by the powers that be...

"Prompt treatment of any injury or illness by a licensed veterinarian"? Vague, and open to prosecution for crazy stuff like teeth that need cleaning, or any minor injury like a cut or scrape. These cases are already happening........a breeder in Virginia recently had her dogs confiscated because some needed their teeth cleaned!!!

A disaster response and recovery plan is needed, "including, but not limited to, structural damage, electrical outages and other critical system failures." Good lord, since when is an electrical outage considered a disaster? Do they require a disaster plan for people without dogs, or with children? And it sounds like it will take a lot of effort to get it written up. Again, another needless but intentional roadblock to breeding.

"Constant and unfettered access to an indoor area that has a solid floor". Gosh, the exact same requirement that we objected to in the original ordinance. Still there! Hey, can I put my dogs out for exercise in the yard and close the door? Legally, guess not!

Shawni Larrabee, director of Animal Services for Salt Lake County, sent an email to the President of the local kennel club, in which she claims that they are copying the Calgary model. She informs him that she has three other ordinances in store for Salt Lake County. "These changes would require cat licensing, increase the penalty for repeat noncompliance and eliminate pet limits in unincorporated county." I'm not sure what sort of "noncompliance" she is referring to. Elimination of limits, always a good thing.

Yes, increased licensing compliance is part of the Calgary model. Annual inspections, no. Bill Bruce says that once the owners license their dogs (and now cats) he doesn't care how many they have or what they do with them, because Calgary has plenty of ordinances to deal with those that don't take care of their animals. 

But really, how shocking is this whole proposal. Home 'inspections' for ONE LITTER.. people bartering away their rights to freedom and privacy, and for what? Because they DARE to breed their dog? Absolutely appalling!

"Portion of a residence used as enclosure"?   What does that mean.. it means.. anywhere the dog has access to within your home is open to inspection. So now your home is subject to "inspection by the authorities".....No probable cause or warrant required!

This ordinance should be struck down. No private residence should be open for inspection because of a litter of puppies.. ( or kittens??)  Do they inspect your home when you bring a child from the hospital.. if you have a home birth.. anyone???

BRRR... First, LA County, and now Salt Lake? What is happening to our freedoms? 

 

I beg those of you who live in Salt Lake County to attend the hearing and ask for the defeat of this ordinance!

The 6 Million Dollar Pet Store

In an AP article from 2008, Wisconsin was called a "magnet for large-scale puppy mills". The state's governor, Jim Doyle, had just signed a new "puppy mill bill" into law.

The animal shelters must be overflowing, you'd think. There must be stray dogs left and right.

Uh....No.

The Ozaukee Humane Society in Saukville, Wisconsin (a division of the Wisconsin Humane Society) is cutting the ribbon tomorrow morning in an opening day ceremony for a lavish new animal shelter. This shelter cost $6 million, and encompasses 22,000 square feet. It incudes such amenities as solar hot water panels, classrooms, an adoption center, and a veterinary clinic.

The older shelter nearby is being closed, it's paltry 40 animals transferred to the new "Taj Mahal" shelter. But, it seems the demand for dogs in Wisconsin outstrips the supply. 49 dogs have already been imported from a shelter in Kentucky. The imported dogs included Australian shepherds, Labrador mixes, rat terriers, blue heeler mixes, Chihuahua mixes and beagle mixes.


"I'm sure they'll all be adopted this weekend" said Angela Speed, director of community relations and development for the Wisconsin and Ozaukee Humane Societies  She admits that the typical length of stay in the shelter is just two to three days.

Well, they must be killing dogs due to Pet Overpopulation, right? Even if it is just a few, no one should breed or buy, while shelter dogs die! Right?

"We never euthanize for space or time" Speed admits.

Amazing! All those "large-scale puppy mills" in Wisconsin, yet there aren't enough dogs to go around; they are importing dogs...all of which sell like hot cakes! And they have to travel across several state lines just to find them!

And how simple! No breeders to complain about, no requirements for genetic testing, none of those strict standards for health and welfare to worry about when these dogs come in! Not a care at all! None of the regulations that they are so proud to have enacted to clamp down on "puppy mills" in Wisconsin. And it seems, anyone in Wisconsin who sells 25 dogs in a year is considered a puppy mill. What about an entity that sells, oh, say a thousand or so dogs in a year? Perhaps a mill of sorts?

But hey, no sweat, just product that flies off the shelf. Good deal! 

Wisconsin's fantabulous $6 million pet store!

http://tinyurl.com/482ybmc

Wisconsin governor signs anti-puppy mill bill into law http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/12/wisconsin-governor-signs-antipuppy-mill-bill-into-law.html

"Save a Dog, Euthanize a Breeder"

It had to happen sooner or later. Someone spotted a shopper at a mall wearing a T-Shirt emblazoned with the motto, "Save a Dog, Euthanize a Breeder!"

THIS is what we are up against, folks. These animal rights fanatics, who really don't love dogs so much as they HATE their fellow human beings.

Within moments of that information finding its way onto a pet law email list, outraged dog owners contacted Zazzle, the guilty party hawking these wares on their website. The "Save a Dog, Euthanize a Breeder" shirts have since been removed, but the "Save a Pit Bull, Euthanize a Breeder" shirts remain up for sale. Similar designs are offered up on Cafe Press as well.

 Should we really find any of this surprising? It seems the roots of animal rights extremism infiltrate deeply. Some internet businesses seem to be run by those who not only sympathize with the goals of extermination of animals through spay/neuter, but are also willing to support such heinous hate rhetoric as as calling for the DEATH of people who are are deeply connected to animals. In fact, these internet businesses not only sympathize with these fringe fanatics, but financially support them as well.

Zazzle recently teamed up with HSUS to sponsor "Spay Day 2011." Here's part of the notice I got a month or so ago from Zazzle:

Zazzle has teamed up with The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International to create awareness and raise funds for homeless pets around the world. Submitting your pet's best photo in the Spay Day Pet Photo Contest will help spread the spay and neuter message and help save an animal's life - so enter the contest today and compete to win great prizes!

One must PAY to enter this contest; it is a fund-raiser.

So, it would appear that Zazzle has already swallowed the HSUS line about spay/neuter saving lives and other such complete propaganda and lies. (See previous posts on spay/neuter)

I also recently received an ad in my mailbox from CafePress; lo and behold, they are donating to PETA and other fanatic groups....here is the message I sent to some dog lists....and then my letter to CafePress, and their stock response that was sent to several people.

I know some clubs do fundraisers using CafePress. Just want to let you all know that CafePress considers PETA to be a "charity" and are donating thousands of dollars to them. They are also giving them some sort of matching funds for the sales on their site. This is really disturbing.

http://shop.cafepress.com/charitees-2010

"CafePress, on behalf of its users, is making a donation to Operation Gratitude (www.opgratitude.com), Breastcancer.org (www.breastcancer.org), NORML (www.norml.org) and PETA (www.peta.org), through its "Chari-Tees" program. Each organization will automatically be given a $5,000 donation. In addition, from December 17, 2010 through December 31, 2010, CafePress, on behalf of its users, will donate $10 for every order sold through each of the charities' shops, up to a maximum of $50,000 collectively."

My letter to CafePress:

PETA kills animals. Don't you read the newspaper? They were convicted of killing puppies and kittens and dumping them into dumpsters.....as soon as they picked them up in their van!

They are hypocrites. They are nut case fanatics. One thing they are NOT is a charity.

I will not support Cafepress in any manner if you donate to animal rights groups like PETA. And I will be spreading the word about Cafepress to all my friends and acquaintances.

And here is the stock response I received (the same message that several others also received)

Dear Starbreeze,

We work with numerous non-profit partners on many different levels, and the causes they support have a wide range. Just as we do in our diverse marketplace of user designed merchandise, we try to support the causes that appeal to the widest range of CafePress members, knowing well that many customers will not like or agree with the missions of all our partners. We're sorry to hear our partnership with PETA has disappointed you, we hope you'll find our affiliations with other non profit organizations (such Green Peace, Carbon Find, Rock the Vote, Operation Gratitude, March of Dimes, ASPCA and many others) will be more palatable.

If there is anything else I can do for you please let me know.
We hope we have answered all of your questions. If not, please chat with us now.(Mon-Fri)

Best Regards,

Jennifer S.
CafePress.com Support Representative

1-877-809-1659 Toll-Free (US)
1-402-517-4480 International
9:00 AM - 9:00 PM EST, Monday - Saturday
(0800) 073 1484 Toll-Free (UK)
9:00 AM - 9:00 PM GMT, Monday - Friday
www.cafepress.com

Gosh, I don't know about you, but the only group among the above that I find "palatable" is the March of Dimes.

So much for Cafe Press and Zazzle! Thankfully, we still have other print services to use, such as Clearsky24 and VistaPrint. Hopefully, some of these other companies with be more discriminating in their affiliations!

Refuse to patronize organizations that promote such heinous hate crimes. Just Say No to Zazzle and Cafe Press.

 

Always one step ahead of us

Another "surprise"! Don't you just love that there's never a dull moment when fighting the relentless assault perpetrated by these animal rights extremists?



Here's the latest news from "PawPac", an AR fanatic legislative group in California. They support two new bills related to spay-neuter (of course)...one is a tax form donation fund, the other bill has to do with.....(drum roll)


Decreasing the number of license plates they need to have for their minimum to get them onto the back end of cars!!! Instead of 7500, they want to be able to have those cute little plates roll out once they reach just 2500 orders.

The cheek of these sneaky PETArds!


Here's part of the notice from PawPac:

AB 564 by Cameron Smyth re: Spay/Neuter Tax Check-Off. Support.


Re-authorizes the tax check-off for spay/neuter and requires tax preparers to tell their clients about the opportunity to donate to the fund for spay/neuter.
To Be Heard: Assembly Revenue and Taxation. April 4
Tell legislators the check-off is a great way for tax payers to fight pet overpopulation .

Oh, my. We certainly must continue to bombard legislators with that Big Lie of pet overpopulation. Can't let up on that! But, here is the REALLY big ambush of the year:

AB 610 by Jose Solorio re: Spay/Neuter License Plates. Support.
Lowers the number of license plate orders from 7,500 to 2,500 required for the program to begin and allows for private donations to the fund for spay/neuter.
To Be Heard: Assembly Transportation. April 4.
Tell legislators the Spay/Neuter License Plates are a great way for the public to support spay/neuter and other programs covered by the special license plates.

"And OTHER programs? Gee I wonder what THOSE might be. Hmmm...funny how we aren't hearing anything about what those OTHER programs might be. Another big surprise in store for California's pet owners in the near future, no doubt!
 
I guess if one can't get enough public support, just officially lower the minimum standards to the whatever-it-takes level. Shouldn't be too difficult to get those "ay" votes after lining the pockets of plenty of liberal legislators.

It's Raining Dogs.....from Other Countries

Frequently, strays are "humanely relocated" from other countries to the US. This, to meet the demand for dogs, as the pet population in our country plummets. That's correct, the supply of pets is not sufficient to meet the demand here in the US.

Let me repeat that again. In case you didn't hear the first time.

There aren't enough dogs to meet the demand!

Think I'm kidding? Read on.

Ever hear of "Compassion without Borders", "Save a Sato", "Save a Mexican Mutt", "Dogs Without Borders"? These are just a few of the many groups who make a living importing dogs from other countries. There is even evidence now surfacing that some of these dogs are intentionally bred for export to the US!


Visit the website of the Taipei Abandoned Animal Rescue Foundation. The director of this group lives in...surprise! CARLSBAD California. They place dogs all across the United States.....from from Snohomish County, Washington, to "Pets Alive", a no-kill shelter in Middletown, NY.

The New England States in particular have a severe shortage of dogs. They rely heavily on groups like "North Shore Animal League" and "Save a Sato" to supply them with pets. But, many other other areas import as well.

Shelters are exempt from many import laws and have no federal requirements to quarantine the dogs or ensure that they are free of parasites and diseases before they place them.



Six Massachusetts residents had to receive rabies treatments because a shelter imported a rabid puppy from Puerto Rico. The puppy was too young to
have his rabies vaccinations completed, but shelters need puppies to satisfy their customers.

Here's some recent headlines documenting this phenomenon.

"Filling Empty Dog Pounds"

http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/2011/05/filling-empty-dog-pounds.html


http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/946/2003/02/06/FillingEmptyPounds/

(story has now mysteriously been removed from the AR-leaning Tufts enews. Thank you California Federation of Dog Clubs for archiving the text)

"Potcake puppies" imported from the Caribbean:

http://www.potcakeplace.com/



http://www.bahamasb2b.com/news/wmview.php?ArtID=3517


"Compassion Without Borders" mostly imports from Mexico to Northern California:


http://cwob.org/rescue.html

"Save a Mexican Mutt" imports pets to the USA and Canada:


http://www.saveamexicanmutt.org/

"Save a Sato" brings dogs from Puerto Rico to the New England states and have done so for many years. In 2003 they hit a glitch when they brought in a dog with RABIES. Oops.


http://www.saveasato.org/


There is a ton of documentation on imports...here's a recent report estimating conservatively 300,000 imports every year.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3765973&tqkw=&tqshow=&page=1

A total of 1470 dogs have been rescued since 2004 by this particular group. They are sent to the USA to be "adopted" here.

http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?Type=aLIV&ID=201012120015

The Helen Woodward Humane Society (San Diego) imports dogs regularly from Romania:


http://www.10news.com/news/9330939/detail.html

And here is the latest info on a relatively new group: "Pets for Paradise"


http://www.cannonfalls.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=19682

http://www.gotostcroix.com/petsfromparadise/index.php

Fostering hope year 'round 

Connie Bickman
Friday Dec 24, 2010

"Several years ago a shelter called "Pets for Paradise" in the U.S. Virgin Islands sent out messages to shelters and rescue groups in the U.S. that could help them place dogs. This plea resulted in sister shelters in Missouri, Georgia, Florida, New York, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota."

It's no secret that dogs are frequently re-shuffled here in the US. Just one of the many articles about that here:

"Shelter dogs make trip from Texas to New Hampshire, where they are in great demand"



http://www.boston.com/community/pets/articles/2010/12/14/shelter_dogs_make_the_trip_from_texas_to_new_hampshire/


Well, the evidence is in, and doesn't it make you wonder? Why do so many people in our country believe that we should be forced to "adopt" stray or rescued dogs...even if they are from other countries? And at the same time, they believe it's a great idea to pass laws that make breeding here a practical impossibility. Scratching my head here.

Why ask why? It's DogGone Nuts!

Yet another article about importing strays:
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april072008/pet_rx-4-7-08.php

Whoopi!

Something unusual happened yesterday on the ABC-TV program "The View"- a celebrity or two stood up for purebred dogs, and expressed doubt about some of the anti-breeder laws sweeping our nation.

"From Albuquerque, to El Paso, to Austin" Whoopi Goldberg began, "there are laws banning the retail sale of animals under one year old. The idea is to promote shelter adoptions and to stop substandard breeding practices."

Well, that's good, right?" piped up her co-host Joy Behar. "It's an effort to regulate breeding and shut down puppy mills." Joy then repeated the popular  myth of pet store animals not being healthy, due to the assumption that they derive from "puppy mills" where there is "overbreeding".

"I'm not sure that it's good" Whoopi reflected, "I understand that you want me to adopt from a shelter and all that, but I've had it with people telling me what is PC...for THEM. I love the effort, but if I want to go to Dogs of America at the mall and buy my daughter a puppy or kitten, I don't think anyone should tell me that I can't."

Can it be that the public is finally noticing how difficult it is to obtain puppies lately? 

Co-host Starr Jones noted that you can't have regulation of certain breeders without affecting other people who have dogs.

Whoopi and Starr then explained that with mixed breeds you don't know what health problems to expect, and you don't have any idea of how long they might live.

Glory hallelujah, and WHOOPI!


Maybe folks are finally noticing that laws that prohibit sales of animals under one year of age are essentially BREEDING BANS. Not a good thing when someone wants a puppy or has their heart set on a certain breed.

Someone please tell me where there exists a LEGAL definition of "puppy mill" and "overbreeding"? And, pet stores have extensive regulations prohibiting the sale of sick animals. Additionally, there is no evidence that animals obtained from pet stores are less healthy than dogs obtained elsewhere. 

Isn't it about time that we stand up for our freedoms? Thank you, Whoopi and Starr, for promoting our right to obtain, enjoy and care for our pets as we see fit.


Pet store sales are heavily regulated; "puppy mills" (if by that, you mean substandard breeding facilities) are already illegal, and no further laws are needed to regulate breeders.

End of story!

"Egg"static over the latest lawsuit

 Gotta be honest, this post has nothing to do with dogs, except in a roundabout manner.

 

But, if HSUS is finally brought to its knees through lawsuits and tax fraud charges, then that would be fantastic news for dogs everywhere.

 

HSUS is already being sued by Feld and Ringling Bros under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act. They are being charged with bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice, and money laundering. And the HSUS is also being investigated by the IRS for tax fraud.

 

Now, we hear that the Association of California Egg Farmers (ACEF), an industry association that represents 70 percent of California's egg farmers, filed an application to join JS West, a Modesto-based egg farming company, in a lawsuit against the State of California and the Humane Society of the United States.

 

The purpose of the lawsuit is to clarify for JS West (and all egg producers in the state) the exact requirements for egg-laying hen housing systems, which was not specified in Proposition 2, according to JS West.

 

Naturally the terms of the proposition are so vague that they create a climate where persecution can occur in a capricious manner, on the whim of the chosen enforcement agent.

 

JS West has "hen cams" on their website that show their very comfortable accomodations for the birds. They are being told these accommodations most likely are not adequate, although to redo everything would be cost-prohibitive for them. But how exactly to redesign the place? No one knows the answer! Glad they are suing over the vague terms. Maybe the stupid Proposition will be thrown out? What a sweet dream!

 

Since the new, undefined restrictions contained within Prop 2 do not take effect until 2015, this issue may not be addressed for a while.

 

But, that's 'egg'sactly what HSUS wants; to create confusion and panic, and cause a decrease in participation in animal agriculture. They've got all the time in the world to watch and laugh! Hopefully, we, the animal owners will have the last laugh.

 

Wanna see the "hen-cams"?

 

Click on "hens live" to see the current setup.

 

http://www.jswest.com/

 

"Good Dog?"

AKC's Canine Good Citizen program is in many ways excellent: it invites people to begin training their dogs, to teach basic manners, to go to classes, and even to walk into the "ring" for the first time.  I have long supported this appealing program, have taught CGC classes, and have directed many novices to it as an appropriate beginning… 

However, the CGC program, and in particular legislation endorsing this program, has some profoundly worrisome potential consequences for future dogs and their owners.  Please take a few minutes to carefully consider not only the details of the program and legislation, but also the way it might be used or manipulated in coming years. These questions may not immediately seem correct—they are contrary to how you have likely thought about the CGC program for years or decades—but they are well worth our careful contemplation.

First, let me recount a disturbing historical pattern: time after time leaders in the dog world have supported seemingly positive ideas that have been usurped by the Animal Rights movement to divide animal owners into little groups that could easily be conquered. Our own programs have repeatedly been twisted into weapons against dogs and the people who love them:

 

1.       We encouraged spaying and neutering for most casual owners for lots of seemingly good reasons and for years we told people it was the responsible thing to do. Animal Rights supporters took it over and legislated mandatory S/N.

2.      We encouraged people to revile pet stores, backyard breeders, puppymills, designer breeds. We said adoption was wonderful.  They took it a step further and said only adopt, and let's make all those bad options illegal.

3.      We said vaccinate your dogs as appropriate.  They said keep all dogs 'utd' on all shots on our schedule, even if it is a bad schedule; otherwise, you are abusing your dog.  

4.      We said that people should not get more dogs than they could handle as this would lead to inadequate care; they legislated that nobody can own more than "X" number of  dogs.  

5.      We preached that people not leave dogs in hot cars with the windows rolled up.  They tweaked that message to become never leave any dog in any car or you are an abuser.

6.      We encouraged people to provide better veterinary care for their animals, and now absurd veterinary choices like how often to clean teeth are being used to seize people's dogs. 

In essence, we have spent decades trying to share our views of the ideal, and how we can all nudge closer to perfection for our animals, and AR advocates have twisted our fundamentally good ideas to be horrific ideas by insisting that the loftiest of ideals ought to become the legal minimum.

I believe that the CGC is another initially positive program that will soon be used to divide dogs and owners. Just as in all the other cases above, the distance between the message that people SHOULD teach their dogs basic manners and the message that every dog MUST pass this test is a VERY short and slippery one. 

Not only does the CGC set a very dangerous precedent, but also it contains some intrinsic problems:

1.      Dogs are NOT citizens.  People are.  People are responsible for ensuring that their dogs' behavior is not disruptive to society.  The onus must ALWAYS remain on owners to be responsible citizens, not dogs.  Otherwise we set ourselves up for ARs to start passing not only breed specific laws, but soon behavior specific laws. 

2.      Dogs are not good or bad. They simply are what their nature and experiences make them, and "goodness" is not a relevant value judgment. Dogs that cannot pass this test are NOT bad.  Not even less good. Low drive, non-reactive, docile, agreeable dogs are NOT the only good dogs! There are many sorts of dogs (and other species) that may not be well suited to the CGC test but are fabulous pets.  People own different sorts of dogs for countless different reasons and in countless different ways. So long as they can keep those pets safely and humanely, that should be just fine.

The CGC program perpetuates the ever narrowing range of what is a "good" dog.  Prey drive, reactivity, fearfulness, over-confidence, exuberance, protectiveness, and playfulness are not bad. Whatever dog an individual wants to own is a good dog if its owner keeps it safely and does not allow it to impinge upon anyone else's rights.  Nothing else should matter to society or our legislature.

People absolutely should be encouraged to teach their dogs basic manners, and much more, but as we support this process we must be extremely careful that we do not inadvertently support the notion that any dog that cannot pass a particular test must be a bad dog. If this is endorsed at the state level, what municipality would want to welcome dogs that are not good citizens?  What will happen to the millions of great dogs who are not suited to this test, or the millions of dogs whose owners are not willing or able to pursue the CGC?

The language and attitude of the CGC program plays perfectly into the hands of the AR movement. I have little doubt that the AKC believes it is a DEFENSE against such attacks—that by demonstrating how well-mannered these dogs are we prevent bad laws, but I believe this is exactly the same as the other examples I cited in that it will have the opposite effect over time—it will create a line that will eventually be used to criminalize everyone who is on the wrong side.  It may temporarily save the handful of dogs that have CGCs, but it will do so by sacrificing the vast majority of dogs and owners. Admittedly the CGC program becoming mandatory would be a huge financial victory for the AKC, and a huge practical victory for the AR movement , but it would be a huge loss for dogs everywhere.

40 states and the US Senate have already passed resolutions "endorsing the CGC test and supporting its effort to promote responsible dog ownership."  Insurance companies have already offered discounts for dogs with CGCs. These are the first steps on a short path to making dogs without CGCs uninsurable and ultimately illegal. This test will simply become one more excuse to eliminate millions of pet homes and pets.

Furt hermore, the specific language of HRC12 raises some questions:

… responsible owners should properly control and provide adequate training for their dogs [Who defines "adequate training" now and in the future? HSUS would be happy to do so in the next legislative session, will you agree with their definition?]

…dogs should exhibit "good citizen" behavior in the presence of other people and animals in both the home and the community [Why is it anyone's business how a dog behaves in a private home?]

…dog bites and animal concerns are on the rise [According to whom?  Is this really a statement we want codified into our legislature?]

…there is a need for dogs to remain well-behaved community members [No, there is a need for people to remain well behaved community members and as such to control their pets in a manner such that they are not disruptive. If people want to train their dogs to be well behaved that is their choice.]

Some readers will perceive this email as being overly paranoid, others will feel that the benefits of a state recognized CGC program outweigh the risks, others stopped reading long ago! These are all fine responses, you must decide for yourself how you feel, I merely wanted to lay out some issues in hopes that before you support or oppose HRC12, or the CGC program in general, you will give some serious thought to future consequences.  It is no longer sufficient for us to innocently create programs or propose legislation that under ideal circumstances might be a good idea. 

We MUST ask ourselves: How will this tool be used by those who seek to eliminate animal ownership?

Author unknown

Under the Bus, AGAIN

Los Angeles Approves Controls for "Animal Facilities"




Unsatisfied with the mandatory spay/neuter requirements implemented in 2006, this week, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved more government regulations for "Animal Facilities". A cap of 50 intact animals will be imposed, unless special exceptions and inspections are involved. This is designed to curb "puppy mills" per news reports....never mind the fact that there ARE no "puppy mills" in Los Angeles county. Hey, why spoil the lynch-mob's hangin' funtimes with truth?




And if you breed or own hamsters, canaries, guinea pigs or lizards, be careful....even YOU may have to comply with these new laws, at the whim of LA's Animal Control director! I am not kidding here! There is specific mention of "hamsters, guinea pigs, pet birds, and reptiles." Because, of course, there is rampant overpopulation of these critters, and undoubtedly they suffer horrific abuse at the hands of their greedy, evil breeders. First violation, $250 fine. 2nd violation-a year in county jail! Good thing none of these type of pets bark, although those damn canaries do tend to sing...putting their owners at risk for animal seizure or jail time!


Per Los Angeles Department of Animal Care and Control manager Marcia Mayeda, the new revisions address "grooming, tethering, housing and exercise.....Crates must be secured.....These changes will protect all animals in the county's jurisdiction including individual pets....All breeders will be required to separate pregnant females from other adult dogs at least 3 days before giving birth". "Nesting boxes" for "females" to be provided...Do ya think they mean "whelping pens" for "bitches"? Like EVERY dog breeder already uses? These ignoramuses don't even know the proper terminology.


Crates secured how? I can secure crates in my car, but not in my home. And most bitches would go berserk if they were separated from their pals into solitary confinement before they give birth. What is the rationale behind that stupid requirement? Do any of these morons actually breed dogs? And who is supposed to police this stuff? I love someone who doesn't have any background in animal husbandry trying to tell me how to raise my dogs.


More "gotcha" provisions:

• anyone selling an animal must identify the breeder or the person from whom the animal was obtained.

• advertisements for the sale or adoption of an animal must include the animal facility license number or breeding license number of the seller. (watch out when you place those "free to good home" ads in the Pennysaver)

• annual vet exam for all intact dogs over one year of age (I guess sterilized dogs and puppies don't ever need vet exams...yeah, right)

• must leave contact info when animals are left unattended (thereby tipping off thieves and robbers that you are gone for the day)

• facilities must have staff on site at least 18 hours per day (even a veterinarian's office does not have staff on site for 18 hours per day)

Local "animal facilites" operators (AKA kennel owners), have worked with the Dept of Animal Care and Control to refine this ordinance. CARPOC (California Responsible Pet Owners Coalition) was also instrumental in its passage. The revision also received a nod of approval from National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA).


One of the proponents, Stormy Hope of CARPOC, addressed the board at the rubber-stamp approval, stating,

"To me, there is no choice between having well run regulated, licensed inspected kennels, no matter the size, and knowing that the alternative is unlicensed, unregulated underground breeding or tiny puppies smuggled in car trunks and suitcases. "

Ms. Hope made several more references to "underground breeders" in her speech. For a moment there, when reading this, I had to pinch myself to remind me that this wasn't a nightmare involving the state mandatory spay-neuter battle. In that fight, Judie Mancuso slung the insult of "underground breeders" at hobbyists who dared to oppose state-mandated sterilization.


But no, this was not a dream, and there was more, much more. "It's a shame but puppy smugglers and underground breeders see the increasingly rigid breeding laws in the U.S. as an opportunity to make easy U.S. dollars", Hope opined. She then went on to compare "underground breeders" to drug smugglers.


WHOA! Hold the phone there! Since when are people who breed dogs even remotely comparable to drug smugglers? Since when is breeding a crime? Since when is the government justified in butting its nose into my personal affairs, including what I do with my pets? Whatever happened to the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"


The stark reality is that most breeders today are actually forced to function "underground". It is impossible to comply with the oppressive limit laws, mandatory spay-neuter laws, high fees for intact licenses and breeding permits....which are only issued ONCE yearly, if you are lucky enough to qualify at all. All these terrorist techniques are solely designed to criminalize and penalize dog breeders. We certainly should not be required to submit to ever-increasing government intrusion into our private lives.


There's some sort of delusion involved here, the idea that there is big money in breeding our pets, instead of acknowleding the huge 'money pit' that most breeders actually find themselves mired in. There's also a fervor for breeder regulation, and judging by this ordinance, for having the state tell us how to care for our animals, including pregnant bitches.


These new animal husbandry restrictions are not limited to licensed, commercial kennels but apply to all animal owners....even those with a single dog or cat! Even to rescues! God help us, even to someone who owns a HAMSTER!


The LA kennel owners...OOPS, I mean Animal Facilities.... worked on this project for months. Nineteen months, to be precise. They believe this to be an improvement over the original County proposal regarding a ban on breeding in certain zones. CARPOC officers were instrumental in dancing with the Mayeda-devil to draw up these new provisions, and NAIA sent out a newsletter glowing with praise for the new regulations, calling them "fair and enforceable".


God help us if they are enforceable! They certainly are not fair.


We managed to miraculously deflect CA AB 241, a numbers cap on intact animals, with a gubernatorial veto, but now our own dog breeders helped to institute the same numbers limits here in LA County. Regarding AB 241, then-Governor Schwarzenegger wisely remarked:

To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 241 without my signature. This measure would make it a crime for any person or entity to own or control more than 50 unsterilized adult dogs or cats for breeding or raising for sale as pets. I support measures designed to prevent animal cruelty and that punish persons engaged in the abuse of animals. However, this measure simply goes too far in an attempt to address the serious problem of puppy mills. An arbitrary cap on the number of animals any entity can possess throughout the state will not end unlawful, inhumane breeding practices. Instead this measure has the potential to criminalize the lawful activities of reputable breeders, pet stores, kennels, and charitable organizations engaged in raising service and assistance dogs.


For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

Too bad Arnie isn't on the LA County board of supervisors.


DELTA rescue, a HUGE no-kill rescue shelter in the LA area, has been a target of Mayeda for a while, and they voiced opposition last summer to the proposed arbitrary 50-dog limit.




In a release tagged as  "FAQs" on the new ordinance, Ms. Mayeda admitted that she would have liked to impose a strict 50-dog limit but felt it might not hold up to legal challenges. She also considered further breeding restrictions on bitches, such as establishing maximum number of lifetime litters, maximum breeding age, and banning back-to-back breedings. Gosh, what would be left to amend next year? Again, what do these people know about dog breeding, anyway? Oh, I forgot, they have dog breeding groups foolish enough to help them to write these regulations as they go.

Here's the link to the FAQs: Very entertaining reading. You can almost see the wheels turning in Mayeda's head, and what she has been considering.


http://theanimalcouncil.com/files/LA_County_AC_FAQ_document_cms1_154287.pdf



And why do we have higher level of concern about animal breeding than we do PEOPLE breeding? All those little tykes running around might possibly need a PET someday....doubtful there will be enough to go around. First mandatory sterilization of all LA's dogs and now regulations on husbandry. Aren't current animal cruelty laws sufficient to address any serious wrongdoings?


Why the hell couldn't someone have stood up at that meeting this week and said, "Excuse me, but do we not already HAVE a shitload of laws against cruelty and abuse? What exactly does this new ordinance provide that we don't already have? Don't you people have a budget to worry about instead of wasting time and money on redundant legislation?"


Or words to that effect.






"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
-Winston Churchill


"You don't compromise on your destruction, you avoid it entirely."
-Glenn Beck

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right; here I am...stuck in the middle with you!"
-Gerry Rafferty and Joe Egan