Wednesday, 30 January 2013
Oregon Has to Stem the Tide of Yellow Journalism
Just read a ridiculous article today (see link below), claiming that because "rescues" are bringing dogs from California to Oregon, California must surely have a surplus of pets. "California Has to Stem the Tide of Dogs" the headline blares. These relocated pets, according to this article, are riddled with disease, suffer from severe emotional distress and are kept in horrific conditions.
Well, claim #3 may not be far from the truth. Lord knows that some of these "rescues" lately have been busted for keeping their charges in abusive and negectful conditions.
While I agree that dogs should not be transported across state lines for purpose of “rescue”, most of this article is emotional histrionics with no basis in facts. Firstly, the misconception that the state of California is lax on sterilization and that is the reason that dogs are being transferred to other states is DEAD WRONG.
Under the Vincent Law, passed way back in 1998, California state shelters are mandated to sterilize all dogs and cats prior to release. Of course, this law was also based on the false premise that shelter problems are caused by failure to spay/neuter. It failed to take into account that, in 1998, shelter numbers had dramatically declined from the 1970s and 1980s...WITHOUT any mass spay-neuter, or forcing people to sterilize their adopted dog or cat.
But even as shelter numbers continued to decline, we couldn't leave well enough alone. Several local areas decided to pass laws requiring all pets to be sterilized. The most densely-populated areas of the state like Los Angeles County have had mandatory spay and neuter laws for several years now. And them, guess what happened? You got it, after those laws were passed, shelter intakes and deaths increased. That is the norm; such foolish, punitive and coercive laws always cause higher shelter intakes everywhere they have been tried. And, some people out there don't necessarily WANT their pets spayed/neutered as they are aware of the negative health consequences that often accompany such drastic measures.
Next, IF these shelter animals are in such horrific condition, how about holding the government shelters responsible for that, rather than spouting a stock meanigless reply about "overpopulation"? Aren't shelters the ones releasing these animals? At least, that is what is being reported here. IF the reporting is in any way reliable.
Shelters sending out dogs laden with parasites and rife with various diseases? Somehow I doubt that. But, even if true, abuse is abuse, whether the animals are being cared for by a private party, a state-run shelter, or a largely unregulated "rescue" operation.
And just because it's called a "shelter" or a "rescue" doesn't necessarily mean there's anything humane going on.
The fact is that there are so few pets available in some areas of the state, that shelters and rescues in California are IMPORTING DOGS from other states and even other countries.
That's right. “Dogs Without Borders” in Los Angeles will order you a dog from as far away as Taiwan. The Helen Woodward Humane Society in San Diego County has shipped in dogs from the south for years, and imports dogs from Europe...specifically from Romania....every month. Compassion Without Borders" has long brought homeless stray dogs into California for the rescue trade. Golden Retriever Rescue LA imports dogs from Taiwan. Beagle rescue flew 40 dogs from Spain into Los Angeles. Then we have Save a Mexican Mutt, who obviously bring up mutts from Mexico.
Gotta restock the store shelves, you know.
Now here's another interesting factoid that those in Oregon probably haven't considered. The US Border patrol did a survey recently and discovered that over 10,000 dogs and puppies are smuggled into San Diego County from Mexico, each and every year.
That's because the shelters in San Diego County rarely have any adoptable dogs.
The group “Wings of Rescue” admits that, over the past few years, it has cherry-picked about 2,000 of the most desirable young and small breed dogs from California's shelters to re-sell in Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia.
WHY is this happening? Why are animals being relocated from one area to another?
Because there is a shortage of pets in some areas.
Having a pet SHORTAGE is not desirable either. A shortage drives up prices, and promotes the black market sales of animals and indiscriminate breeding for quantity, not quality.
But the misguided well-meaning "rescuers" and the less-altruistic animal rights kooks won't rest until all pets in this country are sterilized. They dream of the day when there is a shortage of pets across the nation, just as there already exists a shortage in selected areas such as the New England states and the Pacific Northwest region. They'll be glad to fill the void with pets from Mexico, the Caribbean, Taiwan and other distant locales. (Shhh!! Some of them actually make money doing this!)
Now, let's conduct a little exercise in shelter math, shall we?
According to California's 2011 state shelter statistics (the latest year for which statistics are available) there were 176,907 dogs euthanized for the entire year in California's shelters. We don't know how many of these were adoptable dogs, but most shelter experts estimate that roughly half of all dogs killed are adoptable (ie not sick, injured or aggressive)
The population of California stands at just over 38 million. Using all lthis data, we can calculate that there was less than one adoptable dog killed in an animal shelter for every 400 citizens in 2011. That's hardly what anyone with two brain cells to rub together would be stupid enough to call "overpopulation"
Out of 400 people, perhaps just ONE might be looking for a nice dog? Do you think that shelters might possibly be able to find homes for all or even MOST of the adoptable dogs? There is absolutely no reason why not, IF they are doing their job in a proactive manner.
But don't let facts interfere with the spay-neuter propaganda agenda.
http://www.ridenbaugh.com/index.php/2013/01/17/7738/
http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro/index.ssf/2012/12/oregon_welcomes_some_250_dogs.html
Saturday, 12 January 2013
Love Hurts
Americans have always had a love affair with pets. Stories about pets are common subjects for “human interest” pieces in news publications. We read about dogs who save human lives and the lives of their canine companions. We read stories about long-lived dogs, talented dogs and ugly dogs. We read about dogs who are so faithful to their owners that they remain steadfast at their gravesite.

Cats also provide displays of affections for their owners that inspire news reports. We read about Toldo, an Italian cat who regularly visits the grave of his deceased owner. The man’s widow, Ada, said the cat “brings little twigs, leaves, toothpicks, plastic cups. A bit of everything really,” everyday to the grave of his former owner who has now been deceased for over a year. 1
Then there was the story just this week about the cat in Florida who spent nearly two months walking home after being lost from the owner’s motor vehicle almost 200 miles from home. 2
We also often read stories about animal cruelty and abuse. Tales of “hoarding” and “puppy mills” grab the interest and sell news. These stories serve to solicit contributions by the organizations who are the self-appointed saviors of abused animals. This is mostly a black-and-white issue, or so it might appear on the surface. Animal abusers need to be stopped and they need to be punished, while animal saviors desperately need our financial support. A no-brainer, right?
Well, maybe things aren’t quite as black-and-white as they might seem. Some “abusers” have themselves been affected by financial ruin, a sudden turn in their health, loss of job or home, or even a death in the family. All these factors can affect the ability to care properly for their pets. Even if the accused abuser is completely broke, or physically or mentally disabled, the reports of abuse are completely lacking in sympathy for the person down on his or her luck. Oftentimes, rabid followers publicly call for a lynching of purported “abusers”. If we were talking about children in these households instead of animals, there would be assistance available. Instead, we deliver only scorn.
Pet “rescue” on the other hand, has become the trendy activity. “My pet was rescued” Jane announces proudly. Her friends and relatives congratulate her for her largesse. Win-win, she gets to enjoy a companion and get a boost to her self-esteem at the same time. Proclaiming that you just BOUGHT a new puppy or kitten does not produce the same warm public accolades. On the contrary, you may be derided with jeers about supporting evil breeders, causing shelter deaths and contributing to pet overpopulation (all of these silly notions have been thoroughly debunked here in the past).
And never mind the fact that you do BUY pets from rescues. They aren’t giving them away, folks!
Then, oddly enough, we sometimes also have cases of saviors-turned-abusers. There are also plenty of news stories recounting tales of animal “rescues” where the care has gone sour, and the animals have to be rescued from the rescuer. Generally, what happens in such cases is that a rescue entity becomes overloaded with more animals than it has the resources to care for. Now, the very group that we trusted to “rescue” has suddenly become the “hoarder”. How can that be? How can a hero one day become a villain the next?
“Hoarder”, “abuser”, and “puppy mill” are all pejorative slurs that are thrown about handily in the popular news media. Similarly brainless terms like “rescue” and “shelter” are thrown about in a self-congratulatory, feel-good manner, when in actuality they are meaningless and do not necessarily reflect any actual beneficence on the part of the person or group being described. Such stereotypical monikers do not often reflect reality, and that is a major reason why we should refrain from using them.
Americans donate to various animal charities by hand over fist each year. The ASPCA rakes in $144 million per year, with net assets of $188 million, while the HSUS receives about $177 million each year. 3
This is mostly accomplished through donations from a generous, pet-loving public who are urged by these self-appointed saviors to please donate a certain monthly amount. Say around $19 a month? Just a suggestion, since hey, you really want to help poor suffering animals. “Look at these horrific pictures and please open your wallet!!!” And people do, by the hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year.
In February, 2012, a cat “rescue” called Caboodle Cat Ranch Sanctuary near Tallahassee, Florida was raided. The rescuer had hundred of cats on the premises. Animal rights operatives spent many months gathering up “evidence” in the form of photographs taken of sick animals that were being housed on the premises. The cats were removed from the rescue and remanded to the care of the local law enforcement agency. ASPCA immediately stepped in and sent literally HUNDREDS of people in to care for the cats.4
The ASPCA subsequently asked for $1.8 million dollars in reimbursement for care of
these “rescued” cats. From their website:
“In a letter to the judge, Director Tim Rickey of the ASPCA details how $1.2 million [as of June 22] has been spent on care for Caboodle Ranch cats. In addition to medical care and basic necessities, the cats are receiving behavioral enrichment to “remedy the effects of the severe neglect and lack of socialization they experienced during their time at Caboodle Ranch.”
Problem is, the itemized list of expenses was released to the public, and very little of those expenses were related to actual care of the cats. Most of it was for airfare, hotels and meals for the humans involved. The expense statement the ASPCA turned in was simply outrageous! Listing “plumbing”, “carpet cleaning”, “chocolates for the ladies”, “lunch at Panera’s for 100+” (totaling over 1200.00), resort hotels, $400 thousand in airfares and rental cars and the list of vacation expenses goes on and on. $1000 for snacks in a two-day period. One person even submitted the charge to replace her cell phone battery. What gall! Very little was listed in the way of actual veterinary expenses. 5
On the other hand, the owner of Caboodle cat ranch claimed to be able to produce over $90,000 in veterinary bills for the cats, that he personally had paid when the cats were in his possession. Hmmm. Which “rescue” was truly legit here? The jury seems to be still out on that.
Knowing the manipulative history of animal rights fanatics, I am very skeptical about the Caboodle Cat Ranch Rescue. If you’d like to read more information about the case, check this post on YesBiscuit (and please do read the comments):
http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/700-cats-seized-from-cat-sanctuary-in-fl/#comments
So just how reliable is the ASPCA.....really?
Recently, the ASPCA agreed to pay Feld Entertainment a whopping $9.3 million settlement in a suit brought against them under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Seems they manufactured evidence. Are they admitting guilt? It certainly seems so. 6
Well, now we know how the ASPCA will use your $19 per month automatic payments; they will be sending them to the Ringling Brothers circus, even though they originally conspired to bring the circus down. Poetic justice! At least THOSE donations will actually to go care for some animals. Good deal.
The request for the $1.8 million dollars expenses reimbursement was denied. Here is the trial court ruling:
“The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, hereafter referred to as ‘ASPCA’ did NOT have an agency relationship...”
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEJ5J_n7tIqY0hTcEF5VEVyOFE/edit?pli=1
Perhaps the courts are waking up to the blatant abuses of groups who, despite their self-proclaimed sainthood status, are not necessarily the do-gooders one would expect based on their names.
1http://digitaljournal.com/article/340666#ixzz2HVRbXSEo
2 http://www.wafb.com/story/20533966/lost-cat-walks-190-miles-to-get-home
3http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/14/charities-11_American-SPCA_CH0234.html
4http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Caboodle_Ranch_Cat_Sanctuary_Operator_Faces_Cruelty_Charges_140581263.html
5 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhEJ5J_n7tIqdHNTNmJfZ1Fwc2RuazR2RHJpVGVqSmc#gid=0
6 http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/aspca-382414-ringling-elephants.html
Thursday, 19 April 2012
Idiocracy
![]() |
| Coming soon to a pet store in YOUR neighborhood! |
The LA City council is entertaining a ban on sales of pets in pet stores. The proposal was presented by a committee headed by City Councilmember and animal rights activist Paul Koretz. This follows on the heels of similar bans or proposed bans in other California cities, including Glendale, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Chula Vista, Laguna Beach, and West Hollywood.
Never mind that the number of pet-selling stores in all these cities combined could be counted on one hand.
No pet sales in pet stores, unless, of course, "rescue" groups are the ones selling them. And just who is initiating such proposals? Why, of course, it's these very same "rescue" groups. Best Friends Animal Society is leading the charge.
How gullible can we be? Apparently, very.
We seem blind to the fact that "rescue" groups import dogs into LA for the pet market….from commercial breeding establishments in other states, and from the streets overseas, and from foreign "puppy mills".
Yet these groups, "Best Friends" and others, have the nerve to criticize retail pet stores? Best Friends Animal Society's "Pup My Ride" program plucks animals free of charge from commercial breeders in the Midwest and then trucks them into other states (including California), to sell at "adoption" events; and now, to sell in pet stores.
Nothing quite as sweet as eliminating the competition, is there? Make no mistake about it, these groups are just as mercenary a group of pet purveyors as the Hunte Corporation or any so-called "puppy mill" out there.
Pets purchased from regulated sources like pet stores come with legal protections for the buyer. These protections, provided under California's Lockyer-Polanco act, include monetary compensation when facing veterinary bills due to a pet's illness or infirmity. What sort of rules and regulations do "rescue" groups have regarding their sales? Slim to none. Just pay your money.
What recourse will consumers have when they purchase a rescued pet with poor health or when their rescued animal bites their child? They will have NO recourse. The provisions of the Lockyer-Polanco act DO NOT apply to animals obtained from shelters or rescue.
In 2004, the first case of canine rabies in over 30 years in Los Angeles happened when an infected dog was imported from Mexico. But hey, that's so much better than having dogs raised in the US under regulated conditions.
Consumers should not be robbed of their right to choice in the marketplace. The foundation of our country is the free marketplace where competition is the most effective motivator for quality.
The Los Angeles proposal does not limit the sales ban to puppies, but also includes a ban on the sales of cats and even rabbits.
Yeah, I've heard about those horrible rabbit mills. A big problem. What's next, hamsters, turtles, or maybe even goldfish? Oops, sorry, San Francisco is already way ahead of us there.
But wait; there's more.
The committee also proposes to crack down on "illegal breeding operators." And what do "illegal breeding operators" have to do with pet store sales? Illegal breeders don't sell to pet shops. Does this crackdown relate to shelter numbers in any way? And how do we determine how (or even IF) pet stores, illegal breeders and shelters are interrelated?
Of course, all these new rules and regulations will require enforcement from the police state. That is costly. No problem, Koretz and his committee state that the increased regulations will result in...ready for this one?....more license revenues!
And how the devil do they think that they will increase revenues from dog licensing when they are prohibiting sales? So they plan to enforce their new rules with money that they won't be getting. Makes perfect sense to me.
Well, politicians are rarely known for their skills of logic; or, for that matter, for their intelligence.
Betcha the portly Koretz's next proposal will be to force us all to make our pets drink Brawndo instead of water.
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
Shelter Solutions
California is just plain flat broke, and for the past few years hasn’t had the money to reimburse shelters the $23 million dollars per year it owes them under Hayden. But besides just plain not having the money to fund this mandate, another problems is the fact that the state reimbursement is only paid to shelters for animals who are ultimately killed. Those animals reclaimed by their owners, sent to rescues or placed for adoption must have their impound expenses paid for by the agencies or individuals who take them from the shelter, and not by the state. Shelters may not be as proactive as necessary because they will, in theory at least, receive reimbursement for animals that are killed. Laws with good intention often come with unintended consequences, and the Hayden law is no exception, as it has served as a disincentive for adoption.
Most shelters currently hold dogs and cats much longer than the prescribed four to six days anyhow, and even if the Hayden law is repealed in whole or in part, shelters would most certainly not be REQUIRED to kill in three days. They can continue with their current best practices and techniques. Adoptions and numbers of pets sent out to rescues are at an all-time high. No one wants to kill, we hear from the shelters.
Los Angeles County holds animals for an average of eleven days, and the City of Los Angeles holds them for an average of nine days. Well beyond any state legal requirement. Since there has been no state reimbursement since 2009, there will be no real substantive change in conditions with a repeal of the reimbursement mandate. The law will just be altered to reflect the reality of the state’s inability to fund local shelters.
Besides, there are plenty of other action, progressive actions, that could be taken to reduce the burden on animal shelters.
Here are just a few that could help:
• Raise the limit on the number of dogs someone can own. Why is "3" a magic number – especially if they’re small?
• Stop raiding places where the dogs are fine. Stop confiscating dogs from kennels where the dogs aren’t sick, in danger, or dying. Then there wouldn’t BE so many in the shelters. OH – and if there’s NO ROOM at the shelter, then don’t confiscate what you can’t take care of!
• Start doing a better job of identifying what breed the animals in shelters belong to - THEN maybe they’ll be placed in appropriate rescue groups, or sold to people who will know what to expect when it comes to behavior – and the boomerang effect will be broken.
• How about lowering the price of shelter dogs and dog licenses – so people can AFFORD to own one.
• Stop the 2-tiered fee scam which requires a higher license fee for intact animals. Most of the owned dogs and cats in our state have already been castrated anyhow. But there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that intact owned animals are any more a burden on society than sterilized ones.
• Stray or feral animals are the ones who are problematic, but they don’t have OWNERS to sterilize them. Feral cats comprise the majority of intakes and deaths. Trap-neuter and release of feral cats is a proven solution that few animal control departments use. I guess it’s easier to continue to blame animal owners for all the animals out there who don’t have owners.
• Stop the exaggerations about the numbers of dogs that are pure-bred. Many shelter workers have personally told me, and I’ve seen it, that there are VERY few. The ads/promos make it sound like the shelter has ALL the breeds, just come and get one. People go looking for a pure-bred – and they’re not there. There are many excellent reasons for purebreds – including some idea of personality, size, and behavior – not to mention benefits of specific breeds for people with allergies.
• Provide incentives for apartment owners to allow pets.
• Picked up a stray with a license or a valid microchip? Give it a free ride home. Stop charging up the ying-yang with outrageous impound fees so high that people can’t afford to bail their pet out.
• Stop the mass importation of stray dogs from Mexico, Taiwan, the Caribbean, Spain, Brazil, etc. Shelters and rescues import thousands every year.
• Make the shelters report legitimate numbers – and NOT count the dogs multiple times, NOT count those who are Dead On Arrival, and NOT count the ones brought in at the end of their lives for a merciful death.
• Take the funds that encourage illegal aliens to take up residence and live in comfort and distribute them to the shelter system instead.
• Stop making it more profitable for the shelters to kill than to rescue. Hey – make them WORK with rescue groups.
• Stop the unionization of the shelter workers. No union will EVER agree to a reduction in their work force or anything that might affect their job security.
• FINALLY – HSUS, PETA and other sham organizations could give some of their ill-gotten SCAM monies to our shelters.
• Just STOP making laws that make it more difficult and more expensive for people to own a pet.
Our legislators should be able to come up with many more ideas – that are NOT onerous to pet-owners, that encourage people to have pets, and that would shrink the shelter population.
(Thank you Carol Hamilton for all these great suggestions!)
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
A Different Perspective on "Rescue"
I started doing what is now called “rescue” in 1981. Not because I set out to save the world one dog at a time but because I was taught it is what you do for your breed. We didn’t call it by the dramatic name of “rescue”. We called it “helping out”, “doing what is right for the breed”, rehoming. There was no need to run around squawking about what a “horrible situation” the dog had been “rescued” from – just take the dog and find the dog a new home. Proclaiming loudly about “abusers” and “hoarders” to raise funds wasn’t done. We found the money and did for the dog. Even as a kid I knew that life is what happens while we are making plans and sometimes bad things happen even to good people. I think we are all aware there are the Vick type monsters out there but I really believe enough in the goodness of mankind that I believe Vick types are the exception NOT the rule. Just my opinion, I guess but also my hope for mankind.
The first dog I took in was a sheltie found by my vet in bad shape, wandering a small town, grazing from dumpsters and handouts. Her nails were too long, her coat matted and she had stiches in her belly that my vet felt indicated a c-section, possibly involving a spay. We assumed that she had been in some kind of breeding facility and maybe dumped after her usefulness was ended. We checked to see if she was simply an escapee but no one claimed her. My vet and I, cleaned her up, vetted her, cut her nails and found her a new home. She showed no signs of “abuse”, just some neglect and some of that could have occurred while on her wanderings. I placed her with a young family who had a farm and she lived out the rest of her life as a very happy farm dog not even taking very long to adapt so you have to wonder.
I tried at the time to get my club involved in setting up some kind of program to deal with rehoming but they weren’t interested. They just told me that the “good breeders” would take theirs back and anything else wasn’t their problem. Fortunately things have changed greatly since then and that club had an active “rescue” program the last time I checked.
I have stayed quietly involved with “rescue” from the sidelines ever since that first dog, mostly just holding a dog for a few days, transporting or picking up a dog for a rescue, passing on information, educating new owners, doing some home visits and evaluating dogs. Small things that I felt I could help with but not going full bore into “rescue”. I don’t go around bragging about what I do because I feel it is what I owe my breed, not something I accomplish.
I also don’t put down the owners of dogs coming into rescue FOR ANY REASON. First of all, I don’t know the whole story of that person’s life. I only see part of it. There are a lot of reasons in this world that someone’s life changes and frequently giving up a dog is a part of it. It may be a very difficult part but still necessary, and sometimes it is the best thing for the dog as well as the owner.
I had to give up my dogs when my husband got sued years ago. I had no choice. It was feed my kids or feed the dogs. It was rough, especially when my son had to give up his golden because we were moving into an apartment that wouldn’t take a large dog. The apartment was all we could afford at the time. I was lucky enough to have the resources to place my dogs myself. Not many people do. The golden went to my boss and a year later saved his 5 year old daughter’s life. Needless to say, that dog had a good life with that family. I cried a few tears and thanked God that the dog was in the right place.
To me that is what “rehoming” is about – the right place for the dog. Not “glory” for me as a hero for “rescue”, not shame for someone who gives up or loses their dog for whatever reason. It’s about God given compassion for the dog and God given charity for the owners. Because every time I see some story about dogs taken from an “abuser” or a “hoarder” I know that with the political climate what it is today thanks to the animal “rights” extremists – there but for the Grace of God, go I. There are too many whackos out there that believe that keeping dogs as DOGS is abuse and that no human is good enough to own a dog. And there are too many “rescuers” who feed into that mind set with their screaming pleas for help and money for the dogs that have been “rescued” from some abuser or hoarder.
I am always happy to do what is right for my breed and help in any way I can with the placement of a dog but I won’t do it at the expense of a human being. And when a “rescue” starts squealing about “hoarders” and “abusers”, I simply step away. It’s not necessary to denigrate another human being in order to help a dog. Just do what is right for the dog and let God take care of the rest.
Elizabeth Brinkley, MFA in Theatre,
Legislative Liaison TRSSCGP
Dante Kennels, est. 1974, Latrobe, PA
AKC Breeder of Merit
http://www.dantekennels.com/
Member - ASSA, TRSSCGP, WCOTC, OHA
"When injustice becomes law, Resistance becomes duty." T. Jefferson
"One of the greatest delusions of the world is the HOPE that the EVILS of this world are to be CURED BY LEGISLATION. " Thomas B. Reed 1886
Saturday, 11 February 2012
Dogs Rule at Westminster
![]() |
| "Maverick" a rescued Weimaraner, to participate in this year's Westminster Kennel Club show! |
In one of the most heartwarming stories ever, we learn of a Weimaraner named Maverick. Maverick's owner purchased him from Craigslist a couple of years ago. Seems Maverick was in very poor condition, underweight, neglected and unhealthy. But within a few months, under the tender loving care of his new owner, Maverick began to go to dog shows....and win...and win big....and as a Grand Champion, he will now be a participant in Westminster, the most prestigious show of the year.
Maverick's owner feels that his dog was a “rescue”. Indeed, Maverick could well have ended up in a shelter or rescue had he not been sold on Craigslist. Had that happened, Maverick would almost certainly have been neutered. What a pity that would have been for the Weimaraner world.
I've often thought that the requirement to spay/neuter every rescued dog was not only unnecessary, and potentially detrimental to health, but also contributes to narrowing of breed gene pools. Canine geneticists advise us to keep as many individuals as possible in a breed's gene pool. Genetic diversity is necessary to maintain overall health, vigor, longevity, fertility and optimal immune system function. In the case of purebreds, spay/neuter of all rescues is a very unwise move that reduces genetic diversity. While of course we must be discriminating in selecting individuals for breeding, considering health and good temperament, it's also a beneficial goal to include as many individuals in breeding programs as possible to help promote diversity and avoid the pitfalls of inbreeding. Another benefit of genetic diversity is lower incidence of breed-specific genetic health problems.
Wholescale spay/neuter, along with over-use for breeding of just a few dogs deemed exceptional, dangerously narrows the gene pools of our breeds. Maverick’s story is a success story not only for him and for his owner, but for his future generations. They would never be born if the typical “rescue” ending of a routinely performed neuter had spelled the end of Maverick’s tale. Thankfully, Maverick’s genes were ultimately preserved.
Animal rights groups have convinced us that it is merciful to spay and neuter all the animals that pass through a shelter or rescue situation. They imply that breeding is a cruel fate for animals. I think they are wrong. Dogs enjoy the activity of raising their young, just as we do.
And speaking of animal rights groups and Westminster, we also learned this past week of the termination of the Pedigree “Dogs Rule” advertising/adoption campaign that has been held during the Westminster KC show for the past several years. In my case, there was an immediate visceral objection to seeing presented abused and neglected rescued dogs (very few of which were intentionally-bred purebreds) at an event of this nature. Animal rights groups do believe that purebred dog breeding is to blame for shelter intakes and they make no bones about voicing that opinion. Even the narrator of the Pedigree commercials, David Duchovny, is an “animal rights” proponent and a PETA supporter.
So, way back in 2007, I was curious about the Pedigree campaign which was jointly conducted with the American Humane Association.
I checked out the American Humane Association website, to see where they stood on issues. The page I referenced has since disappeared and the website has been streamlined, but I looked at their website and discovered that:
- They support AR agenda legislation in various states.
- They advocate for mandatory, pre-pubescent spay-neuter.
- They oppose medical research using animals.
- They promote various “freedoms” for farm animals.
- They oppose commercial, for-profit breeding, slurring this as “puppy mills”, and state that this is inherently cruel.
- They support “guardianship” as opposed to “ownership”.
- They oppose any and all tail docking, ear cropping, debarking or declawing.
- They oppose racing and coursing.
- They support mandatory microchipping.
I found it curious that during the Pedigree drive and fundraiser conducted during the Westminster KC show in 2007, there was never any mention of the many breed rescue groups, run primarily by breeders and breed club volunteers. I did not pay much attention to the commercials in subsequent years, so I don’t know if breed rescue ever was mentioned.
The Pedigree commercials referred to AKC show dogs as “lucky”….saying shelter dogs are “not as lucky as the show dogs you see here”. The implication was that these show dogs are the few, the minority, that most dogs end up at shelters. Not true. A very small percentage of dogs end up at animal shelters each year….check the nationwide numbers, it is around 3-4% of owned dogs. The vast majority of dogs in the US are cared for in a responsible and humane manner, and do not end up abandoned. Sometimes, I think it is too easy to forget that, especially for those who work day-to-day in a stressful shelter or rescue setting.
It’s not a result of “luck” that the vast majority of dogs lead a good life. It is the result of plenty of hard work, effort and dedication on the part of their owners. But mostly, it's the result of our love affair with our dogs. Westminster is a quintessential display of that affection we hold for "man's best friend".
Responsible ownership and breeding is constantly under attack from AR groups. Good riddance to the Pedigree commercials at Westminster.
Remember, it was just a couple of years ago that PETA interrupted the Westminster show with their cheap shot-style protests. Maybe that is when the club decided enough was enough and to sever ties with animal rights groups:
http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/2010/02/parade-of-mutants-seen-in-westminster.html
"Rescued Weimaraner to show at Westminster":
http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2012/02/rescued-weimaraner-to-show-at-westminster-2012/
"Pedigree replaced as Westminster sponsor":
http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/pedigree-replaced-as-westminster-sponsor-after-24-years/
Monday, 23 January 2012
Institutionalized Cruelty - the AlphaTex case
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.
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.
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, 8 January 2012
"Forever" is a long, long time
There's a warm and fuzzy message! Sounds good, no? If you can't keep a dog forever, then you shouldn't own one! Just fuggedaboudit.
This sort of black-and-white thinking, this dogmatic mentality (pardon the pun) is further evidence of why we have so many intrusive and oppressive laws proposed.
- We say, you should spay/neuter your pets; they say, hey, let's make it the law.
- We say, microchipping saves lives; they say, great idea! let's make it mandatory.
- We say, to breed responsibly, you should belong to a breed club and do health testing, Hmmm, let's make it a law that ONLY those who belong to breed clubs with enforced codes of ethics can buy a breeder's permit.
- We say, don't breed too often; they say, OK let's make a legal limit of one litter per year.
- "Keep your numbers down and don't expect to make any money" we advise each other; they say, if you own a kennel or make money, you are a grubby puppy-miller.
- We say, "rescue is noble, let's help make sure our breed doesn't add to the shelter population"; they say, "Don't breed or buy while shelter dogs die" .......... "Adopt, don't shop!" Pet sales become outlawed except for rescues
- We say, "Make sure when you get a dog it's not an impulse purchase"; they say, "A dog is forever" and forbid pet shop sales, or advertising in newspapers or via the internet. You'd better have your sales and breeding permit numbers displayed, and you'd better not transfer ownership in public. (Oddly enough, it's OK to impulse purchase rescued animals in pet shops or at adoption fairs.)
Life changes, stuff happens. Sometimes the dog does not work out for the situation. Working dogs go where they are needed. You lose your job and maybe your home, you get sick or perhaps even die....the dog needs to be re-homed. Breeding dogs might be sold to new owners. Someone moves, a friend or relative takes their dog. A serviceman is relocated, and his dog needs a foster home, or a new home. Breeders may place their "retirees" in pet homes.
The "Forever Home" propaganda is just another crafty animal extremist method of discouraging pet ownership, and demonizing pet owners. Don't fall for it!
Thursday, 15 December 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.





