Down the Path Toward Extinction

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.    Bernard of Clairvaux  (1090 – 1153)

As noted in a prior post, the British "Canine Alliance" foolishly has expressed a desire to work with the KC to promote health testing in the show setting, providing that such checks apply fairly to ALL participants.

However, the idea of testing all show entrants is not practical, admits pedigree dog blogger, TV producer and animal rights puritan Jemima Harrison, stating, "can you imagine the uproar, anyway, should vets DQ some top dog de jour that's just arrived after a 300 mile journey to compete?"

Been there, done that. Remember Crufts last week? These people probably would have preferred to escape the spotlight of winning and then being singled out for ridicule for having an undisclosed "health problem".  The popular lynch mob sentiment seems to be "why not release the results of their exam if they have nothing to hide"?  Why not indeed? Privacy be damned, none of that exists after the witch hunt and public lynching. What was the crime again? Who knows? "Guilty!" is all that matters.

When the Canine Alliance members mentioned their objections to the heavy-handed and unfair way they have been treated by the Kennel Club, Harrison criticized them for worrying more about themselves than the dogs.

The DOGS are more important than the people who breed them, in the eyes of the animal rightists.
The dogs don't care if they are in a show, she muses, and anyway, she wants dog shows to go down the tubes for good…to be banned, in her words. (Like as if we didn't already figure that one out). Besides, if poodles cared they would object to being groomed to be "embarrassingly ridiculous" according to Harrison.

No, dogs don't care at all if they are in a show, or how they are groomed. They are DOGS, not humans. Golly, that is hard to remember for those who prioritize the treatment of dogs over the treatment of human beings. 

Yes, dog shows are primarily a human activity. We make the choice to participate, for whatever personal reason we may have. For fun, for possibly starting a breeding program, for camaraderie with fellow hobbyists, for the sense of accomplishment, for the bond you establish with your dog, for receiving recognition for a job well done. Don't we all seek approval? That is basic human nature.  

But according to the ARistas, dogs have the right to not be exploited at the hands of the exhibitors, judges and breeders.

In a newly-released statement, the Canine Alliance states:

"The Canine Alliance was formed to represent everyone involved with pedigree dogs, and to negotiate when necessary with any related organisations in the interest of all breeds. Its aims are to protect and support the well-being of pedigree dogs, to uphold the ethics of responsible dog breeding, to encourage health checking of all dogs and to allow the exhibition of pedigree dogs without bias or discrimination.... It pledges to be fair and totally transparent, always working to the benefit of pedigree dogs."

Any related organizations? Like who? YIKES! The Pedigree "exposers", perhaps? The RSPCA, an animal rights group?  The very group that has actual police authority? Don't they have enough power already to enforce their anti-dog breeding agenda on society? Guess not.

You don't negotiate with terrorists! Those with nothing to lose don't actually compromise very well. It's all take and no give. The demands just keep on coming!

Anyone with a lick of common sense realizes that if you give animal rights extremists an inch, they will definitely take a mile. But sadly, those whose country is overrun with AR laws and  bleeding-heart sentiment just don't seem to "get it". Exactly where do they envision this path to the future leading us?

Harrison, leader of the dog rights puritans, lays her cards on the table in her recent blog, as she mocks the published goals of the "Canine Alliance". Here is her plan for the path:

At last! An organisation that I can sign up to! After all, I'm involved with pedigree dogs and I can sign up to most of those aims. I also protect and support the well-being of pedigree dogs; I am happy to uphold the ethics of responsible dog breeding and to encourage health checking of all dogs….

So what shall we do first, CA?

• Limits on popular sires and inbreeding?
•  KC registrations dependent on taking and actually passing breed specific tests?
•  Health reps educated in rudimentary genetics?
•  Proper breed health surveys?
•  Ban dog shows in their current form (I mean, didn't you say you were working to the benefit of pedigree dogs?)
  
  It's so exciting, isn't it? Together, we can achieve so much!

My my, someone who neither breeds nor shows dogs, but "involved" so intimately. So thrilled to have such "achievements" to crow about. "Together", eh? Unfortunately, with all the conciliating that the KC has done, I'm sure she does feel that such "achievements" are hers to boast about.

And, if I didn't know she was a pet owner rather than a breeder, this idea would clue me in immediately. Requiring PASSING breed specific tests simply to be registered? And what end, pray tell, would such folly serve? Do many people seeking out a purebred dog really want an unregistered dog? And when we move beyond registration to actual showing and breeding, shouldn't breeders have the license to decide whether or not they wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater? 

Oops, guess not. After all, in true AR form, these folks believe it is horrific to pass on any defective genes. Dogs must be 100% disease-free to bred. Or, in the case of the British, to simply be exhibited! Ah, make that, must be disease-free to even be registered!   

Is it any wonder that people resist health testing when there is such a social stigma attached to the "unhealthy" dog and its "bad breeder"? According to the events unfolding in the UK, health test results may adversely affect a breeder's ability for self-determination in breeding decisions. There just MAY be a bit of reluctance to participate when the end result is punishment and derision.

And, the problem with such simple-mindedness is that there is no 100% healthy dog. ALL dogs, just like all people, can and do suffer from health problems, and yes, many are genetic. All animals carry some genes for detrimental health traits. Geneticists believe so, and I think they probably know whereof they speak.

In "Removing the Stigma of Genetic Disease", Dr. Jerold Bell writes: "My hope for each breed is that there will eventually be so many testable defective genes that it will not be possible for any dog to be considered "perfect." Then we can put emotions aside and all work together on improving our breeds."*

Purebred dogs as well as outcrossed dogs all carry problem genes. And dogs with extremes of conformation…..excessively short legs or short noses, for example….are not necessarily inbred, PDE rhetoric notwithstanding.

Geneticists advise against automatic dismissal of disease carriers. Such practices further limit genetic diversity. Such practices give us the same result as popular sire syndrome! For some of the endangered breeds, narrowing the gene pool by eliminating dogs with whatever health problem you are looking at is not always a black-and-white decision.

What the devil is a "proper" breed health survey? Oh, I'm sure the omniscient ARs among us will be waiting in line to help craft such projects. The very people who believe that elimination of hip dysplasia in domestic dogs is a realistic goal.

If one is actually "educated in rudimentary genetics", they would not recommend such drastic winnowing away at breed gene pools. Eliminate every dog with borderline or worse hips, and a significant proportion of ALL dogs will be gone. Canine orthopedists know that few breeds are free of hip dysplasia, and many if not MOST breeds have significant numbers of affected dogs.

So there go most all the breeds on hip issues, with the possible exception of sighthounds and standard poodles. In some of the toy breeds, eliminating all dogs with patellar issues would mean entire breeds would be tossed out.

Eliminating every Clumber with a diamond-shaped eyelid, as the AR extremists wish, would eliminate, well, EVERY Clumber Spaniel, wouldn't it?  This from the KC breed standard:

 "Acceptable to have some haw showing but without excess. Free from obvious eye problems."

"Haw" shows with a mild degree of ectropion. Apparently this part of the standard conflicts with the stated goals of the newly-instituted health checks. Wouldn't it be grand if they could get their act together and coordinate the goals here?

The KC just released information on breeds that are in danger of extinction in their country due to low numbers and closed gene pools.** Twenty-nine breeds are now considered endangered species in the UK. The specific breeds are not listed except for the "top five". In keeping with current scientific knowledge of the benefits of genetic diversity for health and longevity, increased numbers of imports and judicious outcrossing are being presented as methods to help prevent breed extinction. This is fabulous!! I applaud the KC for such forward-thinking ideas that breeders definitely need and can use to move forward. However, before they get the chance to implement these ideas, they may just find that the anvil of the health crusade may kill of some of the very breeds they want to preserve. I wonder if the Clumber Spaniel is on that endangered list? I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

Way to decimate the gene pools of the breeds most in danger of extinction. Jolly Good Show! 

Ronald Reagan reportedly once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Substitute "Kennel Club" for "government", and you have the ten most terrifying words in the English language.

*http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_stigma.htm

**http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4185

Crufts - No good deed goes unpunished

One of the veterinarians who performed the health checks on the Crufts fifteen "high profile breeds" must be feeling the heat. Dr. Skipper (yes, that's really her name) released a lengthy statement, explaining her motives for involvement with this new program. She gladly volunteered, it seems, because she "supported the initiative and decided....to get involved."

"I'm not stupid" Dr. Skipper continues, " I knew it would be extremely controversial, and that I would probably have to make decisions that would be very unpopular."

Yes, this vet knew exactly what was being asked of her and she gladly volunteered for the seek and destroy mission. After all, she is altruistic and noble. She wants to "improve the health and welfare of pedigree dogs." Eager to rescue the breeds from their breeders, she disingenuously claims to have "great sympathy for the owners of the dogs that were failed....It must have been disappointing, embarrassing and humiliating, and it gave me no pleasure at all to do it."

Yeah, right. Just like those teachers back in grade school didn't enjoy humiliating their errant students by banishing them to the corner with dunce caps. There was no sanctimonious pleasure involved there, either. 

Dr. Skipper didn't give a flying fig about humiliating the people involved. She knew the stakes involved....she volunteered for the job...she believed that the end of improving canine welfare justified the means of humiliation and degradation of the owners. Those owners had extensive testing done on their relatively moderate dogs who were stellar examples of their breeds. Why, those owners should be happy to spend untold thousands on their breeding program and competions, just so they could have the pleasure of reading all the complimentary notes Dr. Skipper wrote on their forms! Yet instead, they were upset due to being ultimately excused. Who'd have ever imagined such a thing? What poor sports. Why couldn't they just "take it on the chin" as was suggested earlier this week by AR blogger Jemima Harrison?

And the good Dr. further claimed she operated at "great personal risk; if I were found guilty of false certification I could be struck off the veterinary register and lose my livelihood".

HOGWASH! Just like the judges or a referee in a ball game, what the veterinarian sees at the time cannot be disputed after the fact. If she says the dog had a limp, or the conjuctiva was red at the time of exam, who can dispute that? Betcha she didn't administer any antibiotic eye drops or ointment, either to those she diagnosed with conjuctivitis. Taking a specimen for culture is necessary to properly diagnose an infection, but of course that wouldn't be necessary for the purposes of making a political statement about dog shows. Which the good Dr. then goes on to diss, stating "The world would still spin on it's axis if there were no dog shows." So I guess it's fine in her book to contribute to the demise of these insignificant shows because TO HER they are unimportant. Whether or not dog shows are important in the grand scheme of things is really inconsequential. People who wish to participate have the right to do so without harrassment by AR freaks.  

Dr. Skipper honestly believes that her input is needed to save "a Pug that struggles to walk along a path" or a dog with "chronic low-level discomfort" Nothing animal-rightist in those statements, is there? Such drama, as if the Pugs at Crufts were struggling to walk. Puh-leeze! And further, she casually drops the statement that that "There aren't enough good homes out there for the dogs there are already." Another jaw-dropping, blatantly ignorant mantra oft-repeated as part of the animal rights propaganda campaign against dog breeders. 

"One thing I am angry about is that the media coverage is focused so exclusively on the dogs who unfortunately failed." Dr. Skipper whines. Seriously? The world has noticed this travesty of justice, not surprisingly. So this supposedly unbiased, "independent" examiner, with no ulterior motives whatsoever beyond the purported promotion of good health, now is actually angered that her actions may have come under question in the wake of the dumping of several breeds at the biggest show of the year.

Anger is the trademark response of one who is biased and operating in crusade mode. Not the response of one who is "independent" and impartial.

I bet she wishes she could have gotten her hands on the BIS winner to DQ her as well. Wouldn't THAT have done volumes to improve the lot of those poor, suffering show dogs?

"The least we can do in return is to choose healthy body shapes for them to live their lives within" she concludes. It's becoming clearer and clearer that any sign of chondrodystrophy, brachycephalism, gigantism, diminutive size or other deviations from the feral canid will eventually come under fire. As the KC should hav learned by now, give an inch and soon that inch is stretched out for a mile.

And getting back to Jemima Harrison, the self-annointed "exposer" of purebred dogs, she waxes almost apologetic today. In light of the threats by some exhibitors to desert the kennel Club and their shows, to to give up as they are singled out for punishment, Ms. Harrison now proclaims her solution to everything.... that the dog show needs to be "reinvented". That dogs should receive "points" for such things as health testing and longevity in the family. Hey, not a bad idea, eh?

However, Ms. Exposer remains staunchly in defense of perfunctory vet exams...for winners only....that would completely invalidate such points. She also believes "...that by a certain date, certain health critera need to have been tackled and rectified....This should ensure progress without knocking the stuffing out of breeders who are doing the best."

There's an old saying that fits here. NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED. The more breeders attempt to health test and breed for moderation, the harder that AR hammer will fall on their heads.

Besides, we ALREADY have a system to encourage healthy breeding in place. It's called health registries and pedigree databases. Believe it or not, health registries and health tesing existed long before any nannying busybodies came on the scene. Demand from informed buyers is the market force that is pushing more breeders every day into participation in health testing. Again, the idea that health can accurately be evaluated in the show ring is ludicrous, to say the least.

A health DQ doesn't serve to "educate" or "improve" anything if the reason is not made public. Yet such a revelation would be highly unethical and unfair to the owner. As if the entire world did not know that their dog was DQd for a shameful "health" breach. The winners did not lose their Challenge Certificates, but were humiliated nonetheless. What was the whole reason for this charade again?

A bit too late now to worry about who is getting the stuffing knocked out of them, isn't it? This after her cavalier remark earlier in the week that even if a winner was DQ'd unfairly, the breeder should just meekly "take it on the chin". Why get soft now? It can only be due to the immense worldwide backlash against the harebrained actions of the Kennel Club, at the urging of AR extremists.

The Basset Hound club in the UK also released a statement, this one critical of the KC's actions at Crufts. Good that they caught on to the fact that the Kennel Club seems to want breeds to "conform to the generic shape of the standard canine." This is a real concern for all breeds. And, I'm glad they explained that the amount of "haw" that a Bassett possesses is not at the top of the list of health priorities. However, their main concern seems to be the KC allowing enough time for them to comply with the revised 2009 standard.

I'm still waiting for a club in the UK to really rebel! But since the KC sets the standards and literally runs the show, the individual clubs don't have a lot of say in the matter.

If the clubs would go independent of the KC, they could have their own specialty shows, produce their own standards, operate their own registries, and, in short, determine their own destiny.

Surely this is better than cowtowing to animal-rightist misanthropists.

It is, after all, a matter of preservation of human rights that is at stake here.

 http://www.bassetsrus.co.uk/CRUFTS%202012.pdf

Crufts - the "Poisoned Chalice"

Too "extreme"?

In the wake of the dumping of the Clumber Spaniel by the Crufts vet yesterday, today we find this interesting commentary from the Clumber Spaniel breeders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ubTCBN_l1E

The owner was much more polite than I would have been! I'd have said the Kennel Club could go to hell.

More info on the "unhealthy" winner. Check out all the health testing, passed with flying colors.

http://www.chervood-kennel.com/offspring/boom.html

Of course none of that means a thing to animal rights fanatics who are opposed to intentional dog breeding. And it doesn't mean a thing to the the lackeys of the AR groups - The "Pedigree Dog Exposers" and their ilk - who criticise any supposedly unnatural and "cruel" canine features; short or bowed legs, floppy ears, giant size, toy size, wrinkled skin, hairlessness, too much hair, short muzzles, curled tails....just the tip of the iceberg. Nothing short of a feral canid will satisfy the AR factions.

Some of the bloggers who keep more moderate breeds from the gundog and herding categories are foolishly supporting the campaign against other breeds deemed "extreme."

I guess they honestly believe that they won't ever be affected, so they have no problem supporting trampling on the rights of others to make their own breeding choices.

And, many UK citizens deny that they have significant AR activity....despite this latest conclusive Crufts evidence that AR philosophy is deeply entrenched at the highest levels.

PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk is English.

ALF originated in England.

The animal rights philosophy is deeply rooted in English Puritanism. Locke - Bentham - Taylor - - the Oxford Group - Band of Mercy - SHAC - and many other groups.

The RSPCA was formed way back in 1824 as the world's prototype animal rights organization.

Britain has long banned certain forms of hunting, and banning of canine crop/dock are AR concepts that have been well-established for many decades in the UK.

And now, the AR tentacles in the UK have extended far beyond the bans on hunting, crop/dock, and COI limits. Right up to the highest levels of the Kennel Club. No amount of health testing is enough, no pursuit of moderation will ever satisfy.

Our dogs need to be protected from those who wish to save them.

Another breed dumped at Crufts

Today, it's the Clumber Spaniel who failed the health exam. Will be interesting to find out precisely what the "diagnosis" was.

I was just browsing the newly-released AKC popularity statistics and noticed that the Pekingese has dropped dramatically in popularity over the past decade here in the US. In 2001, Pekes ranked 32nd, but last year, in 2011, the breed only ranked 64th.

The public has the ultimate ability to vote on the whether or not a breed has become too extreme for the taste of most people. Supply vs demand is the ultimate modulator of breeding activities. With a decline in demand, there will likely be a return to a less overcoated model. This would be in keeping with the standard, which states that  "A long and profuse coat is desirable providing it does not obscure the shape of the body."

On the other end of the spectrum, we have the Chihuahua that also fell in registrations from 9th place down to the #14 spot. This breed, along with the hairless breeds like Chinese Cresteds and Xoloitzcuintli, could very well be the target of the same sort of criticism that the Pekingese has endured of late. If it is "suffering" for Pekes to be unable to modulate body temperature with an ineffective cooling system, it would stand to reason that breeds that shiver in the cold morning air are also subject to similar suffering with inability to properly modulate their body temperature. It's just a matter of time before these breeds come under fire from animal rights critics.

Come to think of it, breeds with long, floppy ears "suffer" with predispostion to ear infections. Dogs with excessive skin folds and tightly curled tails suffer from a predisposition to skin infections. Giant breed? Short lifespan; They are suffering. There are MANY brachycephalic breeds (cocker spaniels, mastiffs, Newfoundlands and the like) some of which are now banned on airlines due to their predisposition to breathing difficulties. 

I wonder how many unique breeds will be left, once the anvil of selection falls against "extremes" in conformation?

Crufts Latest Political Stunt

No, this isn't going to be the usual gossip about dog show politics; who's doing the most winning, which judges are crooked, and the like. And, if you thought that stocks, pillories and whipping posts went out of style hundreds of years ago, think again.

The Kennel Club has decided to pander to the animal extremist factions who decry most breeds you see at dog shows as "garish, freakish mutants". This of course is not news, as we have already seen the KC scramble to alter breed standards in an attempt to placate the animal-rightist RSPCA and the BBC TV shows which claim to expose the horrific underbelly of the world of "pedigree dogs".

No, that was deemed insufficient change, so now we have veterinarians examining the breed winners at crufts. This year, two Crufts Best of Breed winners have failed their veterinary checks and will not be allowed to represent their breeds in the group competitions. The details of the supposed health defects have not been revealed, but since we are talking about the Pekingese and the Bulldog, it's a safe bet to believe it may be related to brachycephalism (short noses) and/or chondrodystrophy (short, bowed legs).

Rather than publicly humiliate the winner and rescind their coveted award at the biggest event of the year, why not examine the dogs PRIOR to the judging? Why not censure the judges if they are so stupid that they put up obviously unhealthy dogs? Where is the runner-up to step in and represent the breed in the group ring when the winner is disqualified? Why not simply ban entire breeds from participation if you have deemed them "unhealthy" with extreme conformation?

The answer is obvious. By prominently "dissing" an entire breed, the KC makes a political statement that those breeders have been VERY VERY BAD. They must be publicly humiliated, with the goal of placating animal extremists by putting the bad dog breeders in pillories and giving them a good public whipping. In short, these breeders are being made scapegoats to take the heat of the animal rightist wrath. Naturally, since every breed of dog (and mixed breeds too, and almost every single individual dog ever born) have health issues, eventually EVERY breed of dog will come under intense scrutiny for health imperfections, not just those deemed to have exaggerated features.

If dog shows were truly about rewarding only the healthiest animals, we would see a requirement that only the oldest who have remained healthy would be allowed to compete. After all, it's easy for a young animal to look healthy and beautiful. But will he survive to a ripe old age, with few health problems? The only judge for that is Father Time.

No, dog shows were never meant to select primariliy for health but for form, and to a lesser extent for function. Whether they are useful toward that end is doubtful, but dog shows were never intended to select primarily for health. That's what OFA and other health registries are meant for. And savvy consumers know that most common prevalent health problems (like hypothyroidism, deafness, and autoimmune issues) are never revealed in a dog show.

Let's not confuse the public by claiming that a show championship with a vet check such as the KC is now employing, is a guarantee of a healthy dog. Such an implication is misleading and detracts from the real health testing in which conscientious breeders already participate.

No, there will never be enough changes in breeding to satisfy animal extremists. The dogs will be either too big, too small, too stocky, too thin, ears too long, nose too short, legs too long/short, or they are not friendly (even though meant as a guardian breed). The sooner we realize that this never ends, the sooner we will stop trying to placate the animal rights fringe.

And that's today's sermon.   

Here's the press release from the KC:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4199/23/5/3
Bulldog and Pekingese fail Crufts vet checks

No dog representing the Pekingese and Bulldog breeds will compete in Thursday evening's Best in
Group competitions at Crufts after they failed the new veterinary checks that have been introduced to the show.

The Best of Breed award was not given to Pekingese, Palacegarden Bianca, or Bulldog, Mellowmood One In A Million, following their veterinary checks,
which were carried out by an independent veterinary surgeon. This means that the dogs will not be allowed to continue into the Toy or Utility Best
in Group competitions respectively.

The Kennel Club has introduced veterinary checks for the Best of Breed winners at all Kennel Club licensed General and Group Championship Dog
Shows from Crufts 2012 onwards, in 15 designated high profile breeds. This measure was introduced to ensure that Best of Breed awards are not given to
any dogs that show visible signs of problems due to conditions that affect their health or welfare.

The fifteen high profile breeds are as follows: Basset Hound, Bloodhound, Bulldog, Chow Chow, Clumber Spaniel, Dogue De Bordeaux, German Shepherd
Dog, Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff, Pekingese, Shar Pei, St Bernard, French Bulldog, Pug and Chinese Crested.

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, said: "We are determined to ensure that the show ring is a positive force for change and that we help to move
breeds forward by only rewarding the healthiest examples of a breed."

"The veterinary checks were introduced to ensure that dogs with exaggerated features do not win prizes. The independent veterinary surgeon decided that
the Pekingese and Bulldog should not pass their checks and therefore they did not receive their Best of Breed awards and will not be representing
their breeds in the remainder of the competition."

A Different Perspective on "Rescue"

“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

Buyer Beware

crowd of postop frontal lobotomy patients

The “I Heart Puppies” store in Corona Del Mar just opened in July and already they have been targeted for assassination by animal extremists. These groups attempt to shut pet stores down by any means possible. They do not limit their activities to peaceful protest, they go into the store looking to find technical violations of fire and safety laws. And then even brag about having them shut down for a few days! A protest was held last weekend, intimidating anyone within walking distance, including this child.





Child traumatized by the hate-mongering protestors. Police were there to control the rabid mob.



It’s always fun to visit a site dominated by sky-is-falling shelter and rescue abuse apologists. Their tired old arguments are so easy to pick apart. So easy, in fact, that they will generally ban you from commenting once they find that they can’t refute your evidence.



Last weekend I found a low-traffic junk site article about pet store protesting of the “I Heart Puppies” pet shop in Corona Del Mar. The ignorance of the postings by the shelter apologist crowd was actually laughable. Although I have to admit, it was also quite entertaining.

These anti-breeding drones believe that breeders do not participate in rescue. If breeders only would work at a shelter or rescue, the drones reason, they would surely support the extremist view of banning breeding.



The assumption that no breeders are involved in "rescue" is just plain  ridiculous. The vast majority of breed rescues are run by breeders and breed clubs. And, the assumption that everyone in shelter and rescue work agrees with this extremist viewpoint is dead wrong, too. Not everyone is a Chicken Little. Many of us quietly work to genuinely improve society; while the loud-mouthed protestors only cause harm on many levels. Very sad. But then, what can we expect from people who think it is grand to import puppy mill dogs from China, a country where dogs are bred for meat, and now for the US pet market? 


The fact is that it is nearly impossible to find PUPPIES in shelters. The USDA, under the auspices of the Animal Welfare Act, regulates commercial breeders, or those who breed for profit (which is the American Way, whether or not the kooks like it). There is a federal PUPS bill proposed which would place almost every breeder in the US under USDA regulations. In other words, every breeder out there will be considered "commercial" and slurred by the malicious extremists as being a "puppy mill".


These folks want you to obtain dogs only from shelters or rescues. Sadly, I haven't heard of a rescue yet who can get enough "product" to sell from their local shelter. Most all of them import dogs from other cities, counties, states, and even from other COUNTRIES. There is even a "rescue" group in LA called "Dogs Without Borders" that lets people "order" a dog from another country. Often, this country is China, where dogs are commercially bred without any USDA or AWA oversight. Many dogs in China are bred for MEAT. That's right, they are eaten for dinner by the Chinese. And now, the Chinese are breeding dogs for profit, to export to the US shelter industry.


It's not only China who supplies our rescue market with pets. Many groups import from Romania, the Caribbean, and of course, Mexico. Dogs and in particular PUPPIES are getting so scarce that there was just a big LA Times expose about puppies being smuggled in through LAX.


But yeah, it's better to import dog with parasites and rabies (many documented cases of this) than to allow pet stores to sell regulated and inspected and guaranteed dogs from licensed breeders. There is a puppy lemon law to protect pet buyers/consumers in the state from pups that are unhealthy, but of course if you buy a shelter dog all bets are off. There are many wonderful dogs in shelters, but remember, there are also many animals there because of health or temperament issues.

And there is no puppy lemon law to protect you from getting a sick dog from a shelter or rescue. Buyer beware.



It's Just Another Meatless Monday.....

"It's just another manic Meatless Monday.
I wish it were Sunday. 'Cause that's my Funday."

You're having a great weekend, tending your vegetable garden, bathing the dogs, spending a bit of time taking up arms against the animal rights extremists. Toss in some family funtime at the beach. And then, just when you take a deep breath after a nice weekend, and head back to work, you are hit with

MEATLESS MONDAY

in the cafeteria

Now I'm not saying I didn't enjoy that spaghetti squash casserole....it was delicious! but Oh Dear LORD! I felt like I really should have had a frontal lobotomy done before eating anything presented under such a theme.

The vegetarian/vegan agenda is relentlessly being pushed under the guise of "good health" and "better for the environment". Now it is even hitting the workplace cafeteria! The concept originated in the GRACE Spira Project at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. No, GRACE is not a lady. GRACE stands for "Global Resource Action Center for the Environment", an anti-agriculture project funded by animal extremists. "Spira" refers to Henry Spira, who is widely regarded as one of the most extreme animal rights fanatics of the 20^th century.

Not surprisingly, Meatless Monday is being promoted by the fanatic animal extremist group PETA. I guess they don't actually eat the thousands of animals they kill in their Virginia "shelter" every year. Bully for them!


Meatless Monday aims to reduce meat consumption worldwide by 15 percent. The organization’s Web site claims that going meatless once a week could not only reduce the risk of developing cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity, but would also reduce greenhouse gases and preserve natural resources such as fresh water and fossil fuel.

That seems just a tad far-fatched to me. We found when diabetics went onto the Atkins diet they did much better on meat and veggies instead of carbs. How does meatlessness preserve fresh water? If the animals are not eaten, do they drink less? Less meat eaten means more soybeans grown. Soybean fields need water. Plenty of water. And when did animals learn to use fossil fuels? Who knew! As to cancer, there has been no proven link between meat and cancer. That's just a bunch of tripe. Mmmmm. Menudo sounds pretty good right about now. I must be craving Vitamin B-12 after that vegetarian lunch.


“Meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests,” writes Mark Bittman in a New York Times article from 2008.

Meat factories? Meat can't be manufactured. Well, after all, it's the New York Times. We can't expect objective journalism from them. And, I don't believe for a moment that eating meat is destroying the rainforests. If people eat less meat and more grains and veggies, they'll need to cut down even MORE of the rainforest for crops. Quite a conundrum. A possible solution might be better birth control for humans?

Some vegetarians are not satisfied, however, simply to reject eating meat. They also believe that milk, eggs, leather, fur, and feathers are a product of cruelty to animals. They even oppose eating honey! Those poor oppressed bees, you know. Never mind the fact that bees work just as hard for their queen as they do for us. That doesn't matter at all! These no-animal-products-at-all type of vegetarians are known as "vegans". Vegans are not so much anti-cruelty as they are anti-human.

The reality is that veganism is not simply a choice related to health, fitness or the environment. It's actually a religious belief held dear by fanatic idealogues. The vegan religion proclaims that all animal products should be opposed on moral grounds. These are the same extremists who believe that animals are not ours to use in any way....THAT is the true ulterior motive in the promotion of veganism. Health and the enviroment are not REAL concerns, but manufactured ones intended to send the vegan agenda mainstream.

Even Nathan Winograd, the king of No Kill sheltering, has fallen prey to the mind-numbing mantra of meatlessness and veganism. I LOVE Nathan's No Kill pet sheltering methods, but I'm sorry to see that he has swallowed hook, line and sinker the animal rights nonsense regarding veganism. The guy even has a book out called "All American Vegan" and has blogged that he is an "ethical vegan" who raises his kids and dogs on a vegan diet.

So, if he is an "ethical vegan", wonder what the heck an "unethical vegan" would be? No, I don't think that is the meaning intended behind that phrase. Seems the not-so-subtle implication is that vegans are ethical while the rest of us are sinful, animal-abusing barbarians.

My mother should be so ashamed! Look what a terrible person she raised.  

Not content to push the vegan diet on just humans, the HSUS markets a vegan dog food, based on soy. Figures they'd try to make even dogs into vegans. Seriously, feeding dogs or cats (carnivores) a vegan diet is abuse.
Dogs are carnivores and require complete proteins found in meat. Their digestive tract is not set up to extract proteins from vegetation, like herbivores. A vegan dog is a sick dog.

Human children also need animal products in their diet for proper growth and development. Animal products are the only source of vitamin B12 in the diet, a vitamin essential for proper brain and nervous system function. Well, you can try to include blue-green algae for the B12 content, but it is an unreliable source from what I understand. Not to mention, it tastes like shit.

I believe if God intended us to eat algae, we'd have been born with either fins or flippers.

There are more hazards involved with following a vegan diet. The other nutrients at risk for deficiency are riboflavin, calcium, iron, and the essential amino acids lysine and methionine. Vegan children not exposed to sufficient sunlight are at risk for vitamin D deficiency. Zinc deficiency can occur in vegans because the phytic acid in whole grains binds zinc, and there is little zinc in fruits and vegetables. Other risks of veganism are osteoporosis, rickets, iron-deficiency anemia, macrocytic anemia and poor growth in children. There was even a recent study published that shows that vegetarians have smaller brains than those who eat meat.

Winograd recommends a diet based heavily on soy. Without soy, vegetarians are at risk of protein deficiency. However, soy is extremely high in phytoestrogen content. If one chooses to forego animal products and eat a predominantly soy-based diet, then you can expect as a side effect some hormonal imbalances. Phytoestrogens that are so abundant in the popular vegan food soybeans (think tofu, including "tempeh", "tofurky" etc.) also cause thyroid, reproductive and liver problems.

Based on animal studies, soy also causes aggression, high cortisol levels, low tolerance to stress, neurodegenerative brain disease, and there is a strong suspicion that soy also can produce depression.

Most soy is also the genetically modified variety of crop. Let's not even attempt to go over that subject here. I'll let you do your own research on GMO foodstuffs. How many rainforests have been burned to make way for mass-produced, GMO soy? That's actually a big issue in current events. Look it up! Don't foget the pesticides they are sprayed with!

 WHOA! I think the evidence is in. Meatlessness is certainly not healthier, nor is it in any way "greener" than a traditional diet. And we can conclude that moderation, variety, and a full spectrum of nutrients provided by foods, including animal products, is necessary for a balanced, healthy diet.

Nature evolved the food chain for a reason. That is the reality of life. Veganism is fantasyland thinking, like the bullshit anthropomorphism you see in the Disney movies.

What's next? Treeless Tuesday? Waterless Wednesday? Fat-Free Friday?

Maybe Disney's next film will feature teens hard at work promoting veganism, starting with Meatless Mondays in the school cafeteria. I'll take that lobotomy now, please. That'll make the whole vegan experience SOOO much easier to swallow.

More info on GRACE detailing the connection to PETA:
http://www.beefusa.org/uDocs/grace.pdf

"Study Finds Vegetarians Have Smaller Brains":
http://thehealthyskeptic.org/study-finds-vegetarians-have-smaller-brains

"Does Meat Make Us Sick?":
http://theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/08/does-meat-make-us-sick-q-a-on-veganism-nuts-and-more/2443343/

Dr. Blaylock on dangers of soy:
http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/dr_blaylock/dangers_of_soy/2011/01/20/372072.html?s=al&promo_code=B858-1#ixzz1Bxcbef5f

Here's the study with the big splashy headlines about "Vegetarians less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters". Then if you read the report, you find that their vegetarians were MORE likely to have cervical and bowel cancer. So the headline was totally false!
Supposedly those who eat LOTS of RED meat are more prone to blood cancers, while fish eaters do better than either vegetarians or meat eaters. All in all, the finding are meaningless. We are not told what proportion of those studied were in the various groups, and what other lifestyle factors were involved. Maybe meat eaters are also more likely to smoke? Maybe they are older? Who knows? No mention of other factors. And the study relied on subjective  report of diets which could be faulty.Was the red meat grilled or cooked in high heat? Grilling or frying are known to produce carcinogenic substances. Was the risk lower if the meats were baked, roasted, poached or cooked rare? Was there a large percentage of processed meats or meats with preservatives among the cancer group? Could be that THOSE are the culprits for any presumed cancer risk.
It's a rather worthless study but here is the new article if you care to read it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/01/vegetarians-blood-cancer-diet-risk

The Blame Game

When a case of animal abuse comes to light, the first reaction is to point fingers. But does a judgmental attitude help or hinder the cause of animal welfare?




Animal welfare issues are increasingly at the forefront of the national news lately. Breeder raids, dogs in deplorable conditions, stray dogs, injured dogs, dogs turned in to shelters by their owners. Dogs dumped at the side of the road by the very person they trust to care for them. Such incidents of animal abuse and neglect are covered on TV or in the newspapers on a regular, ongoing basis. Pictures are often included to support the claim of neglect or abuse. Is this really the way we treat "man's best friend"?


With all this sensational reporting in the media, we may tend to develop a skewed perception of the treatment of dogs in the USA. We might forget that the vast majority of Americans love their animals and would never abuse them, at least not intentionally. We believe that animals should be treated humanely, and most of us support animal welfare.


What exactly is meant by “animal welfare”? The American Veterinary Medical Association states on their website: “Ensuring animal welfare is a human responsibility that includes consideration for all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia.”


Concerns for animal welfare have promoted a general awareness of the need for proactive rescue efforts in order to prevent shelter deaths. The public has rallied to the cry to seek out their next pet from a shelter or rescue, to the tune of about four million animals "adopted" each and every year.


Sometimes in the zeal to promote animal welfare, animal advocates may cross into the territory of the Animal Rights philosophy. As society has become more urbanized and we have less contact with our agricultural roots, people may begin to confuse animal welfare with animal rights. It is important to distinguish between the two.




Animal rights is a philosophy that animals have rights similar to or the same as humans. True animal rights advocates believe that humans do not have the right to "use" animals in any capacity. They would prohibit raising of animals to produce meat, leather, wool, feathers, fur, eggs, milk and honey. The would also ban hunting, fishing, rodeos, horse racing, circuses, life-saving medical research using animals, petting zoos, marine parks, breeding of pets, use of dogs for police work, hunting, herding, as well as “seeing eye” and other therapy dogs. In short, any use of animals for industry, entertainment, sport, recreation or companionship would be banned under the animal rights philosophy.




Prominent animal rights groups include PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), IDA (In defense of Animals), SHAC (Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty) and Mercy for Animals. These so-called “animal rights” groups have a definite, well-planned agenda in raising the issue of perceived animal abuse in the media. The "AR" groups wish to promote excessive regulatory legislation under the guise of controlling animal abuse. The animal rightists’ goal is to make animal ownership incrementally more expensive and inconvenient. In so doing, they will achieve an overall decline in animal ownership in society.




PETA claims on their internet homepage, “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, use for entertainment…” However, the animal rights hypocrites at PETA do not have any genuine concern about animal welfare. PETA manages to kill thousands of defenseless pets every year at their Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has killed 25,840 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding them homes. In contrast, other shelters in the area save the majority of their intakes. PETA employees admitted picking up puppies and kittens from local veterinarians' offices, supposedly to "help" get them new homes. Instead, they killed them in the van and then dumped the bodies. They never even made it out of PETA's van! This horrific activity went on for months. These PETA employees were subsequently convicted of "littering" dead animals in various dumpsters in their area.




HSUS is governed by a similar twisted animal rights extremist philosophy. Miyun Park, HSUS Vice President from 2005-2009, said at an animal rights conference in 2006: “We don’t want any of these animals to be raised and killed [for food]…unfortunately we don’t have the luxury of waiting until we have the opportunity to get rid of the entire industry. And so because of that….we work on promoting veganism.”




The official “Animal Rights Agenda” was drafted in 1987 and included in the Green Party platform, and was also published in ‘Animals Agenda’ magazine. The “Agenda” includes this statement of policy:

We strongly discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or purebred dogs and cats. Spay and neuter clinics should be subsidized by state and municipal governments. Commerce in domestic and exotic animals for the pet trade should be abolished.

The animal rights groups are well-funded, well-organized and well-staffed, and they utilize effective methods to shape public opinion. These methods include intimidation, such as boycotts of pet stores and furriers, aggressive media rhetoric campaigns. At times they resort to outright terrorism such as physical attacks on scientific researchers, and highly-publicized (though invariably illegal) raids on breeders, in order to achieve their goals.



The Animal Rightists (or perhaps they should be called "Animal Wrongists”?) have become experts in twisting public opinion on animal issues, including dog breeding and selling. Such activities are now widely regarded in an unfavorable light by the general public.



But it isn't just the animal rights groups who sling arrows at those with animal interests. Dog hobbyists, pet owners, rescue leaders, and members of the public are often among the most vocal critics of perceived animal abuse. When dogs are given up, it's not uncommon for rescue personnel to criticize those who relinquish their dogs, and snicker at their reasons as "lame excuses". In reality, the purpose of shelter and rescue in our society is not to point fingers with disdain at the public, it is to find homes for adoptable dogs. Neither a condescending attitude nor playing the blame game will help animals find homes.




Nathan Winograd, an shelter expert who is pioneering No-Kill sheltering methods in this country, believes that the focus should be on positive programs that save lives. He has demonstrated in community after community that changing attitudes can dramatically reverse the killing tide and help to solve the challenges of pet homelessness. Dwelling on the reasons that pets are relinquished does nothing to solve these problems. We should encourage more families to adopt pets rather than place roadblocks on the path to adoption.

Innovative social programs are the keys to success. Such methods as foster care, extended shelter hours, promoting outside adoptions, and behavior rehabilitation programs have been used very successfully in many areas where they have made the commitment to implement no-kill sheltering. Blaming the bogeyman of "irresponsible owners" is a waste of useful time and energy, and has no place in a successful shelter program.




When we blame the public for animal sheltering problems, we fall into a similar mindset as that which is used by the sheltering industry when they kill animals. "If only people were more responsible, these animals would not have to be killed" is a common reasoning held among shelter workers. Indeed, this attitude is one that animal shelter personnel share with the animal rights groups. Animal rights groups such as PETA and HSUS further believe that "killing is kindness" to quote PETA's president Ingrid Newkirk. And kill they do, all the while blaming the irresponsible public. The HSUS even offers seminars for animal control departments in which they urge that animals in shelters be killed as soon as any mandatory holding period expires. Playing up the "irresponsibility" of the general public makes a great excuse to continue to kill thousands of animals, and to raise more obstacles to pet ownership.



And, many of the reasons for pet relinquishment are not due to irresponsibility, but are the result of legitimate social problems. There have been studies done on the "official" reasons that pets are relinquished to shelter or rescue. The reality of life today is forged by economics. The #1 reason for pet relinquishment is cited as “moving.” High rates of unemployment and home foreclosure contribute to this phenomenon. Unfortunately, financial problems may mean that some pets must be re-homed out of necessity. Pets may also find themselves in need of shelter or rescue due to other unforeseen circumstances such as sudden death or incapacity of the owner.




Behavioral problems are rarely cited as a reason for relinquishment, but issues such as excessive barking, difficulty with housebreaking, destructiveness, and incompatibility with children are common reasons for the honeymoon with a pet to end. When people are confronted with a behavior problem that they can't solve, what happens? Many times the dog is given up....or maybe even taken to a distant location and dumped out of frustration on the part of the owner.



To help get pets into the most compatible homes and keep them there, animal welfarists know that public education and support programs are critical. Most individual breeders and breed rescue groups provide educational information about the requirements of their particular breed and are able to advise would-be owners on whether the breed or individual dog in question would be a good match for their particular situation. A good breeder can also serve as an invaluable resource person who the pet buyer can turn to when they have questions or problems.




When adopting a shelter or rescue dog of unknown parentage and background, advice and support may also sometimes be needed and there are limited resources for such help. The California Federation of Dog Clubs has recently developed a brochure with training tips including basic obedience, housebreaking and leash training. We also have established a 1-800 help line for people to call if they have questions or problems with their dog. This brochure is now being distributed to all the shelters in our state, so that new owners can have a resource and reference when they adopt a new dog. This is another example of proactive methods employed by animal welfare advocates.



Let’s try to solve the problems involved with re-homing dogs without looking to find fault and blame in the situation. Such attitudes are nonproductive and can in fact be used as part of the propaganda to further the anti-ownership, pro-killing agenda of the animal rights movement.

Animal Rights clubs in our schools!

Our local high school is sponsoring an "animal rights" club as an extracurricular activity. The issues surrounding the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare are very familiar to those who work with animals in industry, entertainment, sport or recreation. As society has migrated from our agricultural roots to a more urban existence, the importance of distinguishing between animal rights and animal welfare becomes critical.



Animal rights is a philosophy that animals have rights similar to or the same as humans. True animal rights advocates believe that humans do not have the right to "use" animals in any capacity. They would prohibit raising animals for meat, milk, eggs, leather, fur, feathers, wool, or even honey. They would also ban rodeos, horse racing, circuses, hunting, life-saving medical research using animals, petting zoos, marine parks, and the breeding of companion animals as pets, police dogs, seeing eye dogs and working dogs who help with hunting and herding on farms. In short, any use of animals for industry, entertainment, sport or recreation would be eliminated.



Animal Welfare, as defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association, is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthansia. Animal welfare uses science-based care and treatment guidelines in caring for animals.




Impressionable high school students should be aware of the true nature of PETA and other "animal rights" groups. They are hypocrites.


PETA kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to kill 25,840 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding them homes. In contrast, other shelters in
the area save the majority of their intakes.


Despite its constant moralizing about the "unethical" treatment of animals by farmers, ranchers, scientists, fishermen, and countless other Americans, PETA
employees were recently convicted of picking up puppies and kittens from local veterinarians offices (supposedly for adoption), killing them in the van and then dumping the bodies in dumpsters. They never even made it out of PETA's
van!



PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group's overall goal as "total animal liberation." This means no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no wool, no leather, no hunting, no fishing, and no pets (not even seeing-eye dogs). PETA is also against all medical research that requires the use of animals.




PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminal terrorists. And its infamous "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign crassly compares the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide with farm
animals.


I hope our high school students will do a bit of research into the differences between animal rights and animal welfare and not blindly follow vegan teachers with an animal rights agenda.