AVMA Surrendered to the Dark Side

As an owner of multiple dogs I was surprised to find that the American Veterinary Medical Association has position statements on their website, including a position statement in support of PUPS. PUPS is the federal bill that would subject many more breeders to APHIS guidelines. You know, those rules that force breeders to keep their dogs and puppies in sterile environments, to log all activity including any interaction with their dogs/puppies (thereby discouraging such interaction) and to submit to unannounced inspection of their property at any time.

 

Naturally, such unreasonable requirements discourage most reasonable people from breeding and would drastically reduce the ranks of dog breeders; but, of course, that is the whole intention of the new rules. The are certainly not intended to support and encourage dog breeding. I was pleased to see my friend post this note to the AVMA.

 

March 19, 2013 at 1:46 pm

Hi AVMA/Animal Rights Group:

 Do you have a list of vets who do NOT belong to AVMA? If so I would like to have it so I can find a vet that supports my rights to own, breed and co-own my chosen breed. A vet who realizes that I could own NO breeding animal on my own property and still fall under the PUPS guidelines. A vet who realizes that my home environment cannot be washed down with 180 degree water and that I have soft surfaces that are not "impervious to moisture" so I would never be able to comply with PUPS. A vet who knows that rally, obedience and flyball involve "repetitive exercise' and that I would not be in compliance with PUPS if I used these as forms of exercise for my dogs. A vet who knows that when I write him/her a check for thousands or dollars or slap down my open-ended credit card to save my dog's life that I am a caring breeder no matter how many "breedable' females I own or co-own or how many puppies I sell in one year. A vet who knows that without me, he/she would not be in business, or that their business would be sadly curtailed.

 Please send me that list of non-AVMA veterinarians so I can support that person.. the one who respects my rights, and my dogs, and my brain.

Thank you

 

 

BRAVO!!! I'll be asking for that list myself; or perhaps using the AVMA website function of "find a member" to determine who NOT to support with my hard-earned dollars.

 

This position statement of the AVMA is rather foolish, because after all, veterinarians are ultimately the ones who actually profit from dogs, not the vast majority of breeders. And where would pet lovers be without breeders? Petless and lonely, that's where.

 

Elimination of pet ownership is the dream of the animal rights extremists. It seems AVMA has already surrendered to the Dark Side. Let's hope for the good of society that they will wise up sooner rather than later.

 
 

Climate Control

"We" the responsible show breeders deserve to breed our dogs, because we are so, well, AWESOME, right? We pamper our pooches, we lose a ton of money breeding and showing our dogs. We seldom have litters, we screen our homes, we health test, we belong to breed clubs, we are motivated by love, not money.

Yes, we ARE the bees knees!!! But what about those who might have different goals and different purposes from ours? Are they less “worthy” of breeding? We seemingly don't have a problem with laws that limit those unscrupulous "other" breeders. And they may do things that most of us don't do. They sell dogs over the internet, or to "pet shops" or through brokers or they breed their bitches every year. But, we have to STOP assuming that every broker is bad, that pet stores are merchants of greed and horror, that anyone who is motivated by money is necessarily an evil abuser.

Because it's just plain not true.

All dogs are not destined to serve as primarily as "pets", although even those with jobs are usually dearly cherished by their owners. Military working dogs are procured via brokers and breeders who specifically breed for that market. Guide Dogs for the Blind organizations breed dogs for a specific “helpmate” function. They crossbreed, they breed for aptitude, and they certainly have more than one or two litters a year. Dogs used on farms and ranches have jobs to do, and those who are the strongest and smartest and demonstrate the best ability will probably be selected to be bred to provide us with the next generation.

Traditionally, we have had choice. The choice to own a purebred dog, or a mixed breed dog, to breed as we see fit, whether we want a pet litter of "doodles", or a show litter, or a litter to hopefully produce a dog who will excel at a certain function. (Even if that function is catching frisbees). Do we really want the government stepping in and setting up ridiculous breeding rules? Must belong to a breed club, must do X-Y-Z health certification, must not crossbreed, and on and on ad nauseum.
Do we really want the government demanding that we forego the purebred puppy in the pet shop, with a pedigree and a health history, in favor of imported strays with completely unknown backgrounds? Families who want a pet currently can pick up the newspaper want ads and find one to suit their needs (although last time I checked, there were NO pets advertised in our local paper). Should it be illegal to advertise animals over the internet or in newspaper want ads? Should people have to beg permission from the government in order to breed a litter? These are all issues we currently face in today's climate of government control of our hobby.

Animal Rights extremists want to replace puppies resulting from planned litters with unplanned, crossbred street dogs, many of which are from foreign countries. They've already gotten laws passed to make this the ONLY sort of pet found in a pet stores in many localities in California. They want strict government regulation of all breeding in the US. If the side effect of such over-regulation is causing most breeders to give up entirely, that would be dandy with them. If there were no pets in pet stores, or in newspaper ads, or on the internet, it would be "mission accomplished" for these Animal Wrongists.

Patti Page, famous for the songs "Tennessee Waltz" and "How Much is that Doggie in the Window," died January first at a nursing home in Encinitas, California. How different the climate was toward pets in the mid-twentieth century! Purebred puppies were regarded as one of life's treasures. Pet shop puppies went from societies’ darlings to social pariahs, because the Animal Wrongists have convinced the public that surely they are the product of unscrupulous animal abusers.

We need to get past such attitudes. We need to recognize that passing laws intended to eliminate the few "bad apple" breeders will not accomplish that goal, but such laws will eliminate all the great dogs that we love in the process. The show dogs, the working dogs, the mixed breed "doodle" pets, ALL of them! Patti Page was even pressured to re-write her "doggie in the window" song to one that promotes adoption of shelter dogs.

"Dog breeding is a privilege, not a right" someone recently commented on this blog. I think many people are beginning to fall into this sort of mindset. On the contrary, I believe it is our RIGHT to breed our dog, our cat, our bird, our hamster or our farm animals. They belong to us, and it is our right to breed them. And once we give up that right to government control or even to the discretion of dog clubs, then woe betide us.

We are a nation where choice and freedom are supposed to be guarded and cherished. Our freedom to breed in an unrestricted manner and our choice to own the pet that we want should not be determined for us by others who believe that somehow they know best. When we arrive at the "no breeding" goal of animal fanatics, life as we know it will never be the same. We'll be missing a very important part of our heart and soul.

Trojan Horse

A proposed change in USDA rules would bring almost every pet breeder under federal guidelines, forcing them to build commercial kennels and submit to unannounced inspections by either the public or the USDA. The new proposal would appease the blood-lust of animal extremist groups like the HSUS, PETA, ASPCA, and In Defense of Animals. These groups support a surge in the war against pet breeders, and using the US Federal government to aid in their vendetta makes it even more objectionable. Imagine our own federal income tax dollars spent in the quest to shut down any in-home pet breeding. Nauseating.

The new proposal comes at a time when we find the Federal government under heavy pressure from the HSUS and other AR groups to over-regulate animal breeders under the guise of improving animal welfare. Anti-hunting, anti-breeding, and anti-agriculture bills are popping up all over, and our legislators still don't seem to be clued in yet to the AR agenda.

The idea with the new USDA proposal is supposedly "to close a loophole for pets sold on the Internet." The truth is, there is no "loophole" that needs closing. Pet breeders are heavily regulated already at the Federal, state and/or local levels. With the federal budget deficit, there are insufficient resources to enforce the rules for commercial breeders as currently defined without bringing thousands of new entities under the USDA umbrella. And, so-called "Puppy Mill Bills" have been passed in almost a dozen large states, making federal intervention unnecessary in those locales.

A comment period is currently open until July 16. Please do go to the site to voice your objections and request the proposal be withdrawn:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

To view previous comments and get an idea of what others have already said, check here:

http://tinyurl.com/7aqm66y

Now, ay, here's the rub. Should enough people complain that the USDA withdraws the new rules, there is a bill pending in Congress that will accomplish pretty much the same goal. This bill is PUPS and we have blogged about it here previously. PUPS would tag anyone with ownership of ONE bitch, who sells "X"-amount of dogs or puppies in a year, as a commercial breeder. Makes no difference if you are an active hobbyist who does some breeding but still operates at a financial loss as most do….it's just a numbers game played with the intent to stop breeding by any means possible.

PUPS has nearly enough sponsors to be passed should it come to a vote. And, if the new APHIS regulations are not implemented once the July comment period closes, then I strongly suspect that PUPS will be brought up almost immediately for a vote quicker than we can say "WHAM BAM THANK YOU MA'AM ".

So it is important to continue to oppose on both fronts….PUPS as well as the new APHIS regulations.

Ranger's Proposal

The City of Chula Vista, California, recently established a task force to attempt to develop ways to reduce shelter intakes. (See “Senseless in San Diego” on this blog to be brought up to speed on the situation in Chula Vista). The task force is composed of rescuers, breeders and city employees.


Sharon Hamolsky, a self-proclaimed “animal advocate”, recently brought a powerpoint presentation to the City, called “Ranger’s Proposal.” The proposal is named after her dog “Ranger.” Ms. Hamolsky holds a B.A. in religion (biblical studies) and she is a licensed pilot. No credentials in animal husbandry, however. Imagine that!

“We have to weed out unscrupulous breeders who put profit before humane care for pets. We have to put unscrupulous breeders out-of-business….All prospective pet owners want a healthy animal”, the presentation begins.


OK, so far so good. We are all for humane care for pets, most of us agree that the unscrupulous should be put out of business. And, a healthy animal is always a good thing, particularly when looking for a pet.


"Ranger's Proposal will ensure prospective pet owners will be buying a quality puppy or kitten that meets very high standards.” Hamolsky states. Great! Maybe they are coming up with a plan to reduce the numbers of puppies smuggled in from Mexico?


Shelter workers favor adopting a pet from a shelter, or a rescue, Hamolsky continues. “But, if you absolutely must have a purebred puppy or kitten, ‘Ranger's Proposal’ will ensure the health and well-being of the pet.”


Fabulous! We can have guarantees for health and well-being! Let’s see the rest of the proposal to know how this miraculous feat will be accomplished.


First, we are told that breeders must pay for a special breeder’s license, and pay to be listed on a special Licensed Breeder website, and pay to be included in a 1-800 U-verify phone line for breeders. OK, so far I’m not seeing how this proposal will ensure health and well-being of the pet. It looks like the money is going to go to city bureaucrats, not for veterinary care, or to buy food or new toys. Hmmm.


Next, Hamolsky explains that breeder licensing is a requirement in the City of Los Angeles. However, she neglects to mention that LA’s breeder licensing and mandatory spay-neuter laws have been an abject failure. The cost for a breeder’s permit is $235 per year, and must be paid for any intact dog, whether or not the dog is ever bred. There is a four-page application for said permit, and I’d be surprised if any have applications have been submitted to date. Shelter numbers and deaths have risen sharply in Los Angeles under the brunt of these new fees, rules and regulations.


Still not seeing how any of this promotes health and well-being of our pets. It’s all about extorting money.


Next, Ms. Hamolsky presents a list of “approved breeder criteria” which she claims is approved by Bill Bruce, the very successful director of Calgary, Alberta’s animal control department. Mr. Bruce is a strong proponent of licensing for both dogs and cats.


However, the purpose of the licensing is to facilitate returning lost pets to their owners. Licensed pets are even given a free ride home. Mr. Bruce has stated in public seminars that as long as the owner licenses, he doesn’t care how many pets they have or what they do with them. So I am rather skeptical of Ms. Hamolsky’s claim that Bill Bruce approved her list of criteria for inclusion on the licensed breeder website. That would be rather out of character for him.


The requirements include:


• Must purchase a breeder’s license


• Annual physical exams for the breeding animals


• Owner must follow the veterinary recommendations for preventive health care


• Veterinary recommendations must be entered into a log book, with dates of compliance, and this book must be available for inspection 24/7.


• Unannounced inspections at any time, with a minimum charge of $100 per inspection. You must pay in advance or lose your breeder’s license, and lose your animals (how does one pay in advance for an unscheduled inspection?)


• Limit of one litter per year, and four per lifetime of the animal


• Must pay city business license fees, state and local taxes and state sales taxes.


• (Insert here a drone-like comment about how breeders contribute to “overpopulation”, a condition which does not exist in San Diego County.)


• Prohibition of pet sales in pet stores unless the animal is a “rescue”


• Recommendation to require microchip or tattoo



Whether or not any of this promotes health and well-being of the pet is highly debatable. It definitely would serve to bloat the government coffers, and beef up the veterinarians' paychecks. Hey, City Councilmember Rudy Ramirez’s sister is a veterinarian! Now I think we can understand the impetus for these ideas.


Lastly, Ms. Hamolsky suggests launching an ad campaign featuring male stars and athletes to promote sterilization of male dogs. WAIT a minute! What does neutering have to do with promoting health and well-being of pets? There are few genuine medical conditions that require neutering, and many health problems that can occur as a result of neutering. And what does a public ad campaign for neutering have to do with breeder licensing?


All in all, this is a very schizophrenic proposal, and will only serve to eliminate local sources of healthy, well-bred pets. Breeding dogs is generally a money-losing proposition, and heaping more fees, permits, inspections and other hassles on those who breed an occasional litter will only cause them to give up altogether.


Ah, well, there’s always Mexico; the border is just a few short miles from Chula Vista. They’ll be happy to fill our orders for pets.

Sleeping with the Enemy

HSUS revealed in a press release yesterday that they have partnered up with some naive AKC breeders to form a Dog Breeder's Advisory and Resource Council. Hmm....the D-BARC. Rest assured, that name and its acronym are no coincidence! This is a blatant attempt to silence the voice of those who are independent thinkers. It's a typical divide-and-conquer ploy by experts in that tactic.

"The new partnership will help consumers shop wisely for a puppy by recognizing the difference between responsible breeders and puppy mills." the announcement states. "...composed of responsible dog breeders from across the country. Council members will advise HSUS on dog health and welfare issues, and talk to the general public about what constitutes proper breeding practices, promoting the health of the parents and the puppies."

Proper breeding practices according to WHO? While certain "hobby breeders" may believe that championships and adherence to a breed standard are the most important criteria for success and prerequisites for breeding, others may have different priorities. They may wish to produce nice companions, good workers, or perhaps just would like to experience the joy of raising a litter of puppies. Nothing wrong with that! 
 

Next we hear from one of the actual participants in the program:

"We want to protect our right to be responsible breeders and to enjoy and bond with our dogs in show and performance events, but if we think for one minute that ignoring the problem of cruelty to animals makes us responsible breeders and protects our rights, I believe we're wrong," says Council member and AKC Breeder of Merit, Kathryn McGriff. "We can no longer sweep puppy mills under the rug."

Apparently, this gal believes that breeding dogs=cruelty="puppy mill". Unless done her way. After all, she is lauded as an AKC "Breeder of Merit". A title signifying that the breeder registers all their dogs with AKC, and does some breed-specific health testing. This group of meritorious breeders is certainly not inherently more worthy than any other group of breeders.  
  

McGriff breeds Clumber Spaniels, a breed so rare that it is threatened with extinction. But soon, if HSUS and these "responsible" breeders have their way, laws will be crafted to demand that all breeders fit a certain, limited mold. It will be their way, or the highway. HSUS will use this D-BARC panel to try to eliminate any breeders who are independent thinkers, or who dare to wish to make a profit.


And where does McGriff come up with the ridiculous notion that anyone is sweeping the issue of substandard breeders under the rug? Has she read the APHIS rules? The many "puppy mill" campaigns in the popular press?

There are umpteen rules and regulations, both federal and local, that delineate humane care and treatment of dogs. If people are not complying with rules for care of their dogs then they can be fined, or, in some extreme cases, even have their dogs "rescued" from the situation.


PLENTY of laws exist already on the books. Substandard breeders are exposed every day, and they either reform their practices or they are put out of business. The current system is working quite handily, and it is the finest system in existence. We certainly do not lack sufficient guidelines or laws when it comes to taking care of our animals. Heck, we have plenty of nosy bureaucrats interested in controlling our every step! And now, these few foolish Breeders of Merit are inviting yet more regulatory shackles upon all of us through participation in a program that seeks to "advise" the public on a narrow view of breeding practices. How dare they place all breeders in jeopardy!  

"The primary aim of The HSUS is to promote pet adoption from shelters and rescue groups, and encourage consumers who choose to purchase a puppy to buy from a responsible breeder instead of inhumane, commercial breeding facilities known as puppy mills." the press release continues.

According to HSUS president, Wayne Pacelle, "We commend the responsible breeders who are showing leadership in their community and speaking out against the abusive operations that treat dogs not like loving family members, but like a cash crop."

Reality check for everyone.

DOGS ARE NOT PEOPLE. They are not equivalent to a family member, unless the owner CHOOSES to treat them as such. Many dogs are bred for work, for hunting, for protection, for guides to the blind and other service. While many dogs are also bred as companions, every one of the aforementioned purposes is just fine too.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with breeding dogs as a business. Gosh, how I wish I could make a living doing what I love, being around my dogs 24/7. But alas, that is not possible for those who breed only on a small scale. And now those who breed as a business are under direct attack from all fronts.

The HSUS puts the emphasis on "adoption" from shelters and "rescue" groups. Never mind the fact that shelters and rescues often import dogs from other areas and even other countries because they don't have enough dogs available for sale.

Today I also received word about another show breeder who has fallen under the spell of the HSUS. Just read her note from a message board on the HSUS's website!

Aloha, my name is Theresa Donnelly, and I am the secretary of Boxer Club of Hawaii. Thank you so much for taking this on and questioning the AKC. I am involved with helping pass some animal protection bills here in Hawaii, and I have really enjoyed working with HSUS. I have been hoping that the AKC could partner with HSUS for some time. The fact that health is not a standard that is judged against in confirmation shows is wrong. As a hobby breeder, I feel health and temperament should come before appearance. I can only hope that the AKC will stop opposing bills like our commercial breed bill here. It is too bad too, because AKC has a lot of great programs and it hurts both sides when we don't work together. I thank you for standing up for what is right and confronting them for their breeding standards. We can only hope that as time goes by, more ethical breeders will join the fight. Theresa

What can we reasonably expect from a ditzy chick who can't even spell "conformation"? And who thinks you can judge health in a show ring? Absolutely moronic. Where has she been all these many months that breeders have been under attack? She must be quite insulated from reality there in the Hawaiian islands. If there are more like her, no wonder we read this week that the State of Hawaii is now proposing a law requiring every dog sold be sterilized.* That has HSUS written all over it. Pet extinction in paradise.

Are these few sanctimonious and pious show breeders partnering up with HSUS in a pathetic attempt to eliminate the competition? Or are they really that clueless about the HSUS?

Sadly, some AKC "Breeders of Merit" have joined the circular firing squad. There is nothing meritorious about attempting to eliminate the rights of others to participate in breeding programs that comply with government regulations for humane care and treatment.

More info on Hawaii's SB2504:
*http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2012/bills/SB2504_.HTM

 


Theresa Donnelly, Boxer Club secretary, at a pet store protest in Hawaii on Jan 28, 2012. Wake up and smell the coffee, Toots!



Institutionalized Cruelty - the AlphaTex case

Disability as a result of a toe amputation surgery left Mark Smith with some challenges in the day-to-day upkeep of his family-run kennel. Mounting medical bills made life difficult for the Smith family. A soft economy had hurt sales recently and helped to swell the numbers of Collies, Shepherds, and Golden Retrievers at the Smith's AlphaTex Kennels, based in Texas. 

The Smiths had all their dogs seized. The evidence for the warrant? Video of a limping puppy. Less-than-perfectly clean conditions were found when the Humane Society of West Texas entered the premises.

Dogs rescued?

Well, not exactly. 

When the Humane Society of West Texas entered the property to confiscate the dogs, they killed the puppy that was featured on the video. Reason for the limp? The pup had injured it's leg after tangling with a fence and was recovering. He was due to be adopted by one of the kennel's former employees. Instead of having a chance at a full and happy life, the puppy is now dead.

The "Humane" Society also killed an adult Collie that day, claiming "mange"...in reality, she had hypothyroidism. Coat loss is a common side effect of hypothyroidism. Hypothyroidism is fully treatable and should not be a death warrant for anyone, man or animal. Come to think of it, mange is also a treatable condition. Makes a handy excuse to kill, though.

Another dog had previously been kicked by a horse, suffered a broken leg, and Mark had sought veterinary care. The vet had put a pin in her leg. She was improving. Improving, that is, until the "humane" society raided the premises and decided to kill her that day.

The Smiths did not give permission to the Humane Society of West Texas to kill any of their dogs, or to take and farm them out to foster homes across the state of Texas. But that's exactly what happened.

A litter of eight puppies was taken into custody. Great! They would get proper veterinary care and attention. Right?

Wrong again. Under the "loving" care of the Humane Society  veterinarian, seven of the eight puppies subsequently died of parvo.

With adequate veterinary care and IV hydration/nutrition, the death rate from parvo is very low; certainly nowhere near the 88% from this litter that perished.

Unless, of course, you are a veterinarian employed by the state-sponsored raiders, who, once in court, will try to deflect the blame for the deaths onto the breeder.

The prosecuting attorney presented only limited evidence that seemed to be extremely biased. It must have seemed that way to the jury as well, because they threw out all the charges. All the dogs are now slated for return to the Smiths.

The jury was instructed by the judge that they could assess each case of cruelty individually. The jury still found no evidence of cruelty.

None.

No credible evidence that even one dog was abused, neglected or otherwise mistreated.

Except, that is by the Humane Society of West Texas. Unfortunately, they were not the ones on trial.

In typical animal extremist fashion, the prosecuter tried to turn the trial into a referendum on breeding.

"They kept big dogs alive so they could have little dogs to sell"

he stated in court.

So now, the not-so-subtle implication is that SELLING DOGS is a criminal offense. Since when, exactly?

The prosecutor objected to a binder of photos and information showing the conditions and care provided in the kennel over the 18-month period prior to the seizure.

Incredibly, this prosecutor also belongs to a Facebook group devoted to publicly libelling the Smiths. Further proof of the animal rights extremist lynch-mob mentality in this case. Not to mention, a breach of ethics.

But why expect any ethics here? You see, it was never about good care for the dogs, it was always about removing them from a "greedy, evil breeder". At any cost. Hang the consequences.

The defense attorney admitted that conditions were not tip-top in cleanliness, but felt that the Smiths should have been given some sort of warning to improve prior to the situation devolving into a raid.

Obviously, killers don't like to give any advance notice or fair warning.

The lawyers who defended the Smiths did so on a pro bono basis, and there is a federal case pending. PLEASE dog lovers, dog breeders, and dog owners, dig into your pocketbooks and send a donation via Paypal to:

Jessica@caprocklawyer.com

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.

Banning pet shop animal sales

I was recently asked this question:

"Why would you oppose a ban on pet shop sales?  One would think you'd support such a ban." 

A more interesting question might be why one would think we should support such a ban? 

Two reasons spring to mind.

 (1) You believe that there is an overpopulation of pets, and that the breeding for sale of dogs and cats contributes to this overpopulation, or

(2) You believe that the dogs sold in pet stores (or their parents) are mistreated. 

We know that both (1) and (2) are essentially false. 

The myth of pet overpopulation (1) has been thoroughly debunked. (See links to references below).

As for (2), dog breeding, transportation and sale are heavily regulated --

at the federal level, by the Animal Welfare Act, and

at the state level by the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act (H&S Code, Sec. 122045, et seq.), 

Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act (H&S Code, Sec. 122125, et seq.) and

the animal cruelty statutes (Penal Code Sec. 597, et seq.). 

As a result, purchasers at pet shops can determine the history of the dogs offered for sale and be assured of the standards of care in which the pet was bred, raised and sold. Violators of these laws are subject to civil and criminal penalties. 

Given the protection and disclosure required for the sale of dogs in pet shops, why would I support a ban on pet shop sales?

Education, not legislation, is ultimately the most effective weapon against impulse buying. While I believe the wisest choice is to purchase a dog or cat directly from an ethical hobby breeder, some people choose to obtain a pet from a pet store. Others may select a pet from a shelter or rescue group.

Sales bans usually exempt animals obtained from "rescues" and shelters. Such bans create an artificial market for "rescued" dogs, to be filled by black market suppliers who breed underground or outside the continental US.

Laws and policies that ban the sales of purposely-bred dogs send an extremely negative message about dog breeding. We would be foolish to perpetuate such negative stereotypes and misperceptions.

Mom-and-pop pet stores find it difficult to compete with the Pet Smarts and the PetCos, and even more difficult to compete without the ability to sell pets. We know that these days it is difficult for any business to remain afloat. We have even seen organized protests, threats and intimidation used against businesses selling pets. This type of activity is in violation of the Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act. There's also a section in the California Penal Code (Section 602.1) that makes it unlawful for any person to intentionally interfere with any lawful business by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on the business or their customers.

Isn't it ironic that anyone would consider banning the sales of pets, yet no one is suggesting that we ban the sale of pet foods containing toxic ingredients that have killed these same pets? What has happened to our priorities? Are we allowing the animal extremist groups like HSUS and PETA determine what our priorities should be? 

We have become a nation bent upon controlling every action of our citizens. When perfectly legal possessions like pets are legislated into contraband items comparable to street drugs, we have to wonder where it will all end. Pet extinction, perhaps?

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." 

Plato 

Debunking Pet "Overpopulation":

http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/2010/12/rethinking-spay-and-neuter.html

http://www.examiner.com/animal-shelters-in-houston/the-earth-is-flat-pet-overpopulation-exists-and-other-myths-we-ve-been-told

"Forever" is a long, long time

"I am a Forever Dog"

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!

Pups Act Gets Obama Support

NEWS

PUPS ACT GETS OBAMA APPROVAL

The HSUS's petition for the PUPS act has met with a nod of approval from the OBAMA administration.

Humane Society Petition: http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2011/10/puppy_mills_petition_white_house_100311.html

The Response from the White House:

Improving Regulation and Oversight of Commercial Breeders By Rebecca Blue, USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Thank you for signing a petition on the We the People platform asking the Obama Administration to "crack down on puppy mills." The Obama Administration is committed to ensuring that USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which enforces the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), improves its regulation and oversight of commercial breeders. APHIS is currently developing proposed regulations that would ensure that Internet breeders provide their animals with care and treatment that meets the AWA standards. APHIS plans to publish its proposed rule covering Internet breeders in the Federal Register for public comment in 2012. We encourage interested citizens to provide their feedback on the rule at that time; comments can be logged at Regulations.gov.    APHIS is also moving forward with an enhanced AWA enforcement plan to improve its oversight of currently licensed dealers, breeders, and other entities regulated under the AWA (particularly those who are repeat violators). It is also working to improve the performance of its inspectors.  Additionally, in September 2011, USDA proposed a new rule that when finalized will help ensure that dogs imported into the United States for resale are in good health, are at least 6 months of age, and have received their proper vaccinations. Among other things, this proposed rule is designed to prevent the importation of puppies that have not yet been weaned or have fully developed immune systems, or are sick. Find more information about APHIS' efforts to improve its enforcement of the AWA.  Check out this response on We the People. Stay Connected Stay connected to the White House by signing up for periodic email updates from President Obama and other senior administration officials.

 

Under PUPS, anyone with ownership or co-ownership of ONE intact bitch qualifies to be examined. That means EVERY BREEDER. Then APHIS will scrutinize how many dogs or puppies you and co-owners have placed or sold in a year. If at or over that number, you must comply with reams of AWA commercial rules and regs that are impossible to meet in a home environment, like keeping dogs on nonporous surfaces. Right now the number needed to be sold.....or OFFERED for sale.....is 50, but HSUS has admitted they intend to ratchet down such numbers with future amendments.

The PUPS bill does NOT apply to commercial breeders, they already fall under APHIS regulations. An "Internet seller?" How many breeders have a WEBSITE? You are now an "internet seller." Make no mistake about it, the intent is to bring every dog breeder under Federal control.

Pet store protest bimbos



Photo of bimbo from "D Cups Saving Teacups" website


Yes, folks, it's the Blonde leading the Blonde in southern California.

If it isn't bad enough that there are self-proclaimed bimbos calling themselves "D Cups Saving Teacups", we continue to have other empty-headed morons protesting pet stores on a regular basis.

 The animal extremist group "Companion Animal Protection Society" or "CAPS" is planning a protest tomorrow of a pet store in Orange County. It seems that CAPS is buoyed by their successes with previous pet store protests. In several communities in southern California, CAPS has achieved legal bans on sales of pets in stores, and they plan to continue their crusade.

And now, a CAPS leader has stated in a public forum that no one should breed dogs as long as there are animals in shelters. (In other words, no breeding until hell freezes over.) Now anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that there will ALWAYS be animals entering shelters. But then, these gals don't seem to have two brain cells among them.

Are these pet store picketers really such empty-headed bimbos as they portray themselves?

Apparently, yes. Those who want to ban sales of pets in pet stores (except for "rescues") are completely clueless about the demographics of pets in our nation. They are asking for "proof" of the decline in shelter numbers in our nation. Seems they think that shelter numbers have INCREASED since the 1970s and 1980s. WRONG! DUH, ladies.

It seems ludicrous that the people who want to force everyone to stop breeding are totally ignorant of shelter statistics.


According to “Maddie’s Fund” president Richard Avanzino, in the 1970s, our country’s animal control agencies were killing, on average, about 115 dogs and cats annually for every 1000 human residents. This amounted to about 24 million shelter deaths every year, or a rate of 11.5% per population.


In recent years, according to Avanzino, annual shelter death numbers have dramatically declined to about 12 per thousand human residents, or about 3.6 million deaths each year. This amounts to a staggering 85% reduction in killing since the 1970s.

We have reached a nationwide pet shelter death rate that averages just 1.2% per population. Down from 11.5% in the 70s. I think that's pretty darn impressive progress.

Source:


Fry, Mike,"Reflections from the No Kill Conference in Washington DC":


http://www.animalarkshelter.org/animal/ArkArticles.nsf/AllArticles/3A078C33CD079D17862575AD00471A9B


We already have "rescues" importing dogs into the US by the hundreds of thousands from Taiwan, Mexico, Romania and the Caribbean. "Dogs Without Borders" right here in LA advertises on their website that they will "order" a dog for you from another country if you want it.


There are actually breeders in these other countries who are breeding for export to meet the pet market in the US. This is a horrible practice because not only are the dogs bred under questionable conditions, they can also bring with them rabies and parasites. In 2004, a dog from Mexico came in to LA with rabies and just last year, dogs imported from the Caribbean by a rescue group suffered a parvo epidemic where many died. Another dog recently imported brought screwworm with it...a livestock pest that had been eradicated here in the continental US.

But hey, it's OK for rescue groups to import dogs that are bred under unknown conditions, with unknown health history and ancestry, but not OK for pet stores or breeders here to sell dogs who are raised under strict regulation. Go figure.

Let's see now, we sterilized almost all the dogs, (over 75% of owned dogs in the US are sterilized), and then for good measure, we will criminalize public sales, internet sales, newpaper sales, pet store sales, and private sales unless breeders are willing to allow strangers into their homes, thereby subjecting themsleves to theft and assault. If we ban imports (as we should) then where will the pets of the future come from? Why aren't we prosecuting these terrorist bullies, under the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act, who brag about shutting down legitimate businesses?

Yep, the animal extremists' plan to end pet ownership is moving right along. Pretty soon there won't be any teacups left for the D cups to save.



Animal Enterprise Terrorists-HEY! It's Miss D Cup. Whaddayaknow.




The sleazy bimbo on the far left recently attended a public shelter event pretending to be "looking for good breeders". Yeah, right! 

  

Typical Missouri Puppy Farmer.....

Backbone Gone?

From Barbara Andrews editorial at:


http://www.thedogpress.com/Editorials/1104-Backbone-Gone_Andrews.asp

Is there anything we can do to counter PETA’s incredibly effective
campaign that makes people want to “save a life” by adopting someone else’s reject instead of buying a healthy, socialized, gorgeous purebred from a breeder?

How can we overcome the image HSUS projects of genetically defective purebred dogs? Since AKC absolutely refuses to market the concept of well-bred purebreds, is there any reason to stand up for what we believe in? Are we too crippled, too browbeaten, and too alone to change the direction of purebred dogs?

Dear. Ms. Andrews

There is a great deal we can do. First and foremost, STOP blaming all
the ills of the dog world on 'puppy mills'! Just STOP.

Doing this creates a false story line that is exploited to pass laws
that hurt hobby breeding right along with -- often before --
commercial breeding. Pet limit laws and anti-'hoarding' laws because
"We don't want puppy mills HERE!"; breeder licensing laws that drive
some of us away because of the invasion of privacy and the costs and
create the niche for a terror campaign by incompetent and corrupt
animal control, and that above all leave a stench in the public mind:
"Dog breeders are bad people."

Talk about what good breeders do when you can; point out bad ones when
necessary, making clear exactly what IS bad. But DO NOT use an
all-purpose non-specific smear term to apply to any breeder because
you ARE smearing all of us when you do.

The AKC has come many miles in the last five years. But yes, they
could still do more. The AKC needed to deal with issues coming from
larger kennels and nearly all of those are now commercial. That was
good (more like 'essential,' actually) but when a registry enforces
standards for care and conditions that increase customer costs it
needs to show corresponding value. The AKC did NOTHING to show its
customers that those added costs were justified, the attitude was "If
you don't already know why you need the AKC, then don't let the door
hit you in the backside."


The result was utterly predictable: New 'just a registry' registries
sprang up. The quality was widely variable but what they had in
common was lower costs and a willingness to treat the customer as a
CUSTOMER. As in 'is always right,' rather than 'needs us.'


All is not lost. The AKC owned -- still largely commands -- the
marketing high ground. It still has name recognition that the others
only dream about. It could use its position to tell the public why
'AKC registered' is the mark of quality in dogs. It is at last taking
steps in that direction but needs support, encouragement, and as we
see progress, more of our MONEY.


The continual talk of puppy mills would be merely a distraction for
the AKC if it didn't generate so much waste and ill-feeling. How can
it help us that every Board of Directors has 'Puppy mills are the
problem!' members? Answer: It can't -- these people keep the AKC from
focusing on the real enemy, namely the animal rights movement. THEY
are a major reason the AKC has done such a poor job of marketing.

Just a couple more comments. First, we really DO need commercial
breeding. Yes, Ms. Andrews and others, the AKC was RIGHT about this.
Hobby breeders would have to expand production by three or four-fold
to supply the annual requirement for puppies at current prices. Do I
need to tell my fellow active breeders that "THAT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN"?


(Or rather, it could only happen if the number of hobby breeders were
greatly expanded. Since the AKC is only just discovering the idea of
recruitment and the laws really ARE unfavorable, that expansion is at
best well in the future.)


If visible and legal commercial breeding is eliminated, it will be
replaced by INvisible and ILlegal commercial breeding. Some of this
will be back in the hills, some will be overseas; how can we imagine
that any of it will meet reasonable standards for ANYTHING? How
can that be better for ANYONE? HOW CAN IT BE ANYTHING BUT A DISASTER
FOR THE DOGS?


And finally, if quality home hobby breeders are having trouble selling
puppies then either they're in a breed which is not in demand as pets
-- a reasonable choice but not a justification for whining about poor
sales -- or they aren't doing a good job of marketing. Do you tell
your prospective customer who you are and what's important to you? Is
what you say about yourself what buyers would want to hear? (Hint:
Your show wins are pretty far down your pet buyer's list ...)


'Marketing' is the lamp by which your prospective customer sees you.
If your number one priority is a healthy, happy dog that is everything
your breed standard says it should be but all you talk about is your
show wins, you are hiding your light under a basket. If you don't
bother returning referral phone calls, if you hang up if someone asks
the price right up front, you're kissing some potentially great
owners good bye before you've even said 'Hello.'


Do you have a whole bunch of rules about who you won't sell to? Do
those rules really identify homes that would be unlikely to succeed or
do they just reinforce your feeling of superiority?


Do you have a clear up-to-date web site giving the reader information
about both your breed and your breeding program? Do you focus on
helping a good family get together with a good dog, even if that means
a referral to someone who has puppies right now? Or puppies of a
certain color? Or sells for less than you do?

ARE YOU NICE TO YOUR PROSPECTS AND CUSTOMERS?

Or would you rather blame all your troubles on 'puppy mills'? That's
certainly easier ...






Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
Virginia