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.

License Plate Propaganda

You remember PETA, the people who would rather kill dogs and cats than find them homes? Yep, aren't they just too precious. We've blogged about them here on many occasions. Check out www.petakillsanimals.com for some eye-popping truth about the underlying evil nature of PETA.

In 2007, PETA employee Jane Garrison, her buddy Judie Mancuso and their husbands formed an animal rights group in California. They called it “Social Compassion in Legislation”. The goal? Agitate for spay and neuter laws in the state of California. The method? A relentless political campaign for spay-neuter legislation, enabled by well-planned  propaganda to promote public acceptance.

The left wing slant in the state of California has gotten so out of control that we actually had Judie Mancuso, a PETA supporter and founder of “Social Compassion”, recently appointed to the California Veterinary Medical Board! Fresh from her crusades sponsoring failed bills that would have required all pets in the state of California be sterilized, Mancuso continues to push her anti-pet breeding agenda from a position of authority as a member of the CVMB.

“Social Compassion” was behind two recent onerous pieces of proposed legislation; AB 1634 and SB 250. The former would have required all pets in the state to be sterilized, with a few narrow exemptions. The latter would have required mandatory sterilization and would have also prohibited the sales of unaltered dogs and cats. Several other animal rights groups also joined Social Compassion in official support of these bills.

So far, our state legislature has rejected this proposed intrusion into pet owners' rights to choose their pet's reproductive status. However, with a newly-elected Democratic supermajority in both the California Senate and Assembly, the next legislative push for spay-neuter laws will likely be successful. Meantime, as the animal rights groups strategize their next move, the focus has temporarily shifted to spreading propaganda.

And what better way to spread propaganda than on the back ends of thousands of cars?

Almost two years ago, "Social Compassion" began a push to mass produce a California spay-neuter license plate. With "Social Compassion" founder Mancuso sitting on the California Veterinary Medical Board, it was easy to solicit CVMB support for this license plate program. A minimum threshold of 7500 orders is required to begin production of special license plates; that's the break-even on the expenses of printing up special license plates. Yet today, many months later, the animal rights groups can't quite manage to sell the minimum amount of spay-neuter license plates. They desperately pushed a bill attempting to get themselves a special exemption to reduce the numbers of pre-orders down to 2500 to get their “pet project” rolling. When that effort failed, they introduced another bill, AB 610, that passed and successfully extended their pre-order deadline for another year, until June 2013.

Why there's some of the perps now!!

Now mind you, our state has nearly 40 million residents, yet the spay-neuter fanatics can't seem to find more than about 6,300 people gullible enough to pre-order this special license plate. That's only 0.016% of the population, or less than 1 in 6200 people. Understandable, because not only is this plate UGLY, but this license plate promotes the urban legend that sterilization is healthy and beneficial.

Seems that “Social Compassion”, PETA and the HSUS are devoting a great deal of time and effort to promoting these license plates. But don't be fooled; propaganda is the top priority; they don't care about actually funding any pet clinics; nor finding homes for shelter animals; nor setting up programs and policies that help people keep pets in their homes. The priority is to push lies about “overpopulation”and the presumed need for widespread pet sterilization.

This week, “Social Compassion” sent out an email blast with a special offer. Pierce Brosnan, the Hollywood actor/artist who designed the license plate, is offering to PAY for a free license plate for anyone who wants one. He is being joined in this offer by Katherine Heigl, another Hollywood celebrity nutjob. Heigl recently set up a website in support of animal neutering proclaiming “I hate balls”. (www.ihateballs.com) This website demonstrates how misguided, sick, twisted and desperate these animal rights nuts are.
A friend of mine who spoke out against the license plate program received this note by email:

“Can't figure out what was wrong with AB 1634. Also can't figure out what is wrong with the California Pet Lover's license plate. Proceeds from the plate provide funding for free or low-cost spay and neuter surgeries across California and do not go to PETA or HSUS. They also help to raise awareness about the importance of spaying and neutering.”

“I want to emphasize that the sponsor of this program is the California Veterinary Medical Board. Yes, HSUS is listed as one of the “supporters” but there are many other supporters...None of these supporters receive financial benefit from this license plate program. Proceeds from the plate would provide funding for free or low-cost spay & neuter surgeries across California. They will also help to raise awareness about the importance of spaying and neutering. So, its up to you to decide whether you want to show an “ugly” and distinct license plate in support of what I think is a worthwhile endeavor … And you can get it now for free!”

Uh, OK. Where do we begin to address what is “wrong” here?

First off, if Brosnan and Heigl were really interested in spay and neuter as a presumed cure for the imaginary problem of pet overpopulation, their money would be much better spent in directly providing for free spay and neuter clinics. But no, their main interest is advocacy for the cause of animal rights; the elimination of pet breeding and strictly limiting pet ownership. Brosnan is also seeking the ego boost of seeing his great art masterpiece plastered about the state.

Secondly, there is no guarantee that any funds beyond the cost of production will go to any spay-neuter program. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA.

IF there are profits from the license plate program, the sponsoring agencies collect the money in a License Plate Fund. Per the text of the agreement “ the sponsoring agency shall expend all funds received under this section exclusively for projects and programs that promote the agency's official policy, mission, or work.” And, "to allow the Veterinary Medical Board to support the critically important efforts of city and county animal shelters to address serious animal care and control problems facing the state."

You may have noticed that the words “spay-neuter program” are nowhere to be found. Imagine that!

The VMB may collect the profits and use them as they see fit. Why, they could even decide to funnel that money to [wink wink] Mancuso's “Social Compassion” group.

Funny thing about "Social Compassion" is that those who work for them are unpaid “volunteers”. Volunteers who have endless resources and time to travel thousands of miles back and forth across the state of California, to produce multiple propaganda websites, to lobby incessantly in Sacramento and at the local levels. Mancuso owns a lovely house near the ocean in Laguna Beach. How does she pay her mortgage? How does she support her lobbying lifestyle? Perhaps now that she is on the CVMB, Mancuso does actually receive some sort of salary, but where has her support come from in the past? It can only be from animal rights groups such as HSUS and PETA. They are paying her for her tireless work toward the extinction of pet ownership and breeding.

It is disgusting that an unscrupulous lobbyist like Mancuso has wormed her way into an influential position in state government. It's galling and appalling that this woman, a vegan animal rights fanatic, has weaseled her way onto the California Veterinary Medical Board.

The admitted goal of animal rights groups behind these initiatives is NO BREEDING. They prefer to force us to import mutts from other countries, especially from nearby Mexico, but also from as far away as Taiwan, the Caribbean and Europe. These dogs are often street dogs who bring with them other special bonuses like parvo and rabies. So you can forget about finding an intentionally-bred healthy puppy, a purebred dog, or a “designer” dog bred on purpose, if the animal rights groups have their way. Breeding laws here in the US are now so restrictive that it is difficult to find a puppy of any sort....purebred or street-bred. And in an animal shelter? No puppies. When they occasionally enter they are stolen by staff, snapped up by “rescues” and sometimes even raffled to the highest bidder.

Despite being touted by animal rights groups as being “healthy”, sterilization surgery, especially when performed while the dog or cat is immature, is ironically responsible for many health problems..... everything from spay incontinence, to a depressed immune system, hypothyroidism, and orthopedic disorders as a result of abnormal bone development. This is just the tip of the iceberg; we have detailed many of those problems here in the past, check our tags “spay/neuter” and "rethinking spay neuter".

These license plate proclaim "Spay-Neuter Saves Lives"? There is absolutely NO data to support such a ridiculous claim. Spay-neuter is certainly not a "PRO LIFE" agenda. It is ANTI BIRTH. And it is certainly not "PRO CHOICE." The extremists want to take the CHOICE of spay-neuter away from the person who owns the animal.

Considering the adverse health effects of spay-neuter, we should use the existing excellent tools readily available for doggie birth control. They are called DOORS and LEASHES. These amazing tools are very reasonably priced. Even low-income individuals have access to them. As an added benefit, these great tools are highly effective in preventing death from a car or a coyote. They also work perfectly to prevent your dog from chasing the neighbor's cat or using the neighbor's lawn for a toilet.

Where is the license plate educating about the need to confine your pet? I sincerely doubt that Judie Mancuso, Pierce Brosnan, Katherine Heigl or anyone at PETA or HSUS give a flying fig about your dog being hit by a car.

And then there is the obvious disingenous nature of this offer. If these celebrities and PETA people really do want to subsidize spay and neuter clinics, why don't they just open some up themselves? Or donate directly to those already in existence? We all know the real agenda here. Propaganda regarding spay and neuter is the priority. Control the public psyche and you win the debate. The public must fervently and earnestly believe in “pet overpopulation” in order for the animal rights groups to pass more laws regulating pet ownership and breeding rights. If state-sponsored license plates urge us to support spay-neuter, it reinforces the public perception that more laws are necessary to address a “problem”.

And if you believe in the notion of supposed “overpopulation”, then do I have a bridge to sell you.

Check our posts on this blog for articles that blast the notion of “pet overpopulation” right out of the water.

Canine racism

In the early 20th century German Shepherds were reviled. They were regarded as aggressive, mean and untrustworthy. The mental association of the breed with German Nazis didn’t help its image either. What turned the tide in the negative public perception of this breed was the advent of a nationwide television hero named “Rin Tin Tin.” Suddenly, a breed that was shunned, feared and hated became adored as a family pet and admired for its courage and loyalty.


Every era needs its scapegoat, and so it goes today, with the popular media and even some so-called “dog bloggers” (who really should know better) railing against “pit bulls.”

For decades, one of the most popular types of dog in this country has been the “bully”-type breeds. This type of dog has served as the mascot for the “Little Rascals”, the logo dog for “Target” stores, the dog listening with rapt attention to the RCA Victrola, and the “Spuds Mackenzie” dog in beer commercials. Helen Keller owned a beloved bull terrier. Millions choose dogs of this type when selecting a family dog, and why not? According to aficionados, the Bull Terrier was known in Victorian times in England as the “nanny dog” because it was so reliable with children. Whether the legend about this nickname was true or not, it certainly COULD have been true. Bully breed dogs are smart and loyal and brave, known on many occasions to save the lives of their owners. Just like all dogs of all breeds.

Breeds that are popular tend to be over-represented in shelter statistics and bite statistics. This only means that there are more of them around, not that they are a problem based solely on their type of breed. There are a lot of Chihuahuas in shelters too, and they figure way up at the top of the list for dog bites as well. The most pressing concern about dog bites is the risk of rabies, and that risk is the same regardless of whether the bite came from a bulldog or a Chihuahua.

It's amazing that people who would be immediately offended if a human racial slur was slung are so willing to fall into that sort of insulting and ignorant activity when it comes to dog breeds.

Now we are seeing unsubstantiated claims thrown about that “pit bulls” are a large percentage of shelter intakes and deaths. To illustrate the fallacy of this idea, here is a message I just received from a friend of mine in response to an article I posted about shelter stats on our breed club list:

“I am not sure where they get the information on "Pit Bulls" - it seems to me that pretty much anything large can get that designation. A neighbor's AKC Labrador escaped and was impounded. They swore they had not had any Labs brought in, yet there he was. But he was a Pit Bull. Good job she went and checked personally instead of just taking their word for it.”

This is a typical scenario. Shelter workers are conditioned to be disgusted at the sight of “pitbulls” and to watch warily for them at every turn. And all those misidentified dogs are lumped into the statistics claiming that “pit bulls” are rampant in shelters.

The California Federation of Dog Clubs has produced a Breed ID workshop for shelter workers. There is a quiz included with pictures of dogs of many breeds, and quite a few of them look similar to so-called “pit bulls”. In fact, according to the CFoDC, there are 25 purebred breeds that are commonly mistaken for “pit bulls” including Boxers, Rottweilers and (yep) even Labrador retrievers.

Try for yourself and see how easy it is to identify a dog breed just based on appearance alone:

www.stopbsl.org/bsloverview/impossibleid/
www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

At the risk of sounding trite, how we can treat man's best friend this way? He gives his all for us, and we villainize him, outlaw him, and kill him. 

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.

Idiocracy

Coming soon to a pet store in YOUR neighborhood!

The LA City council is entertaining a ban on sales of pets in pet stores. The proposal was presented by a committee headed by City Councilmember and animal rights activist Paul Koretz. This follows on the heels of similar bans or proposed bans in other California cities, including Glendale, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Chula Vista, Laguna Beach, and West Hollywood.

Never mind that the number of pet-selling stores in all these cities combined could be counted on one hand.

No pet sales in pet stores, unless, of course, "rescue" groups are the ones selling them. And just who is initiating such proposals? Why, of course, it's these very  same "rescue" groups. Best Friends Animal Society is leading the charge. 

How gullible can we be? Apparently, very.

We seem blind to the fact that "rescue" groups import dogs into LA for the pet market….from commercial breeding establishments in other states, and from the streets overseas, and from foreign "puppy mills".

Yet these groups, "Best Friends" and others, have the nerve to criticize retail pet stores? Best Friends Animal Society's "Pup My Ride" program plucks animals free of charge from commercial breeders in the Midwest and then trucks them into other states (including California), to sell at "adoption" events; and now, to sell in pet stores.

Nothing quite as sweet as eliminating the competition, is there? Make no mistake about it, these groups are just as mercenary a group of pet purveyors as the Hunte Corporation or any so-called "puppy mill" out there.

Pets purchased from regulated sources like pet stores come with legal protections for the buyer. These protections, provided under California's Lockyer-Polanco act, include monetary compensation when facing veterinary bills due to a pet's illness or infirmity. What sort of rules and regulations do "rescue" groups have regarding their sales? Slim to none. Just pay your money.

What recourse will consumers have when they purchase a rescued pet with poor health or when their rescued animal bites their child? They will have NO recourse. The provisions of the Lockyer-Polanco act DO NOT apply to animals obtained from shelters or rescue.

In 2004, the first case of canine rabies in over 30 years in Los Angeles happened when an infected dog was imported from Mexico. But hey, that's so much better than having dogs raised in the US under regulated conditions.

Consumers should not be robbed of their right to choice in the marketplace. The foundation of our country is the free marketplace where competition is the most effective motivator for quality.

The Los Angeles proposal does not limit the sales ban to puppies, but also includes a ban on the sales of cats and even rabbits.

Yeah, I've heard about those horrible rabbit mills. A big problem. What's next, hamsters, turtles, or maybe even goldfish? Oops, sorry, San Francisco is already way ahead of us there.

But wait; there's more.

  

The proposal that Koretz presented to the city proposes to study the shelter stats for the next few years after the ban, to evaluate the effect of the ban. So, now the city is going to presume that there is a relationship between pet shop sales and shelter numbers? What sort of faulty logic is this? Wouldn't they first need to do a study regarding where the pets entering shelters and rescues originate? Because, there was a study done by a shelter in Nevada called "Heaven Can Wait." They discovered that fewer than 5% of shelter animals originated from pet stores, and only about 1-2% came from "professional breeders". So where is that presumed link between pet stores and shelter numbers? It's imaginary. Another one of those facts that "everybody knows" to be true.

The committee also proposes to crack down on "illegal breeding operators." And what do "illegal breeding operators" have to do with pet store sales? Illegal breeders don't sell to pet shops. Does this crackdown relate to shelter numbers in any way? And how do we determine how (or even IF) pet stores, illegal breeders and shelters are interrelated?

Of course, all these new rules and regulations will require enforcement from the police state. That is costly. No problem, Koretz and his committee state that the increased regulations will result in...ready for this one?....more license revenues!

And how the devil do they think that they will increase revenues from dog licensing when they are prohibiting sales? So they plan to enforce their new rules with money that they won't be getting. Makes perfect sense to me.

Well, politicians are rarely known for their skills of logic; or, for that matter, for their intelligence.

 

Seen the movie "Idiocracy"?. Heck, we are already there. And our new president? The most likely candidate is the animal rights lackey LA City Councilman who brings us such great ideas, Paul Koretz.

Betcha the portly Koretz's next proposal will be to force us all to make our pets drink Brawndo instead of water.

President Koretz

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

Animal Welfare - AR Lite?

Most of us are familiar with groups that consider themselves to be “Animal Rights” groups. PETA, HSUS, and the like. But most animal groups consider themselves to be concerned with animal welfare, not animal rights. These groups include ASPCAs, local humane societies, "rescues" and other groups

I propose that the difference between animal rights and animal welfare is merely a matter of degree.

Animal rightists don’t believe that people should have any involvement with animals in any way. No animal agriculture, no hunting or fishing, not even any pets. They don’t want to see people adversely affecting animals.

Animal welfare is a more insidious threat because the ideas are presented as more mainstream. No one wants animals to “suffer”, right? Therefore, we need a few laws on the books to prevent that. The animal welfarists, just like the animal rightists, wish to prevent people from adversely affecting animals

Animal welfare has been defined through any of the following concepts:


• Prohibition of dog fighting, and banning of breeds deemed "dangerous"

• Prohibition of tail docking

• Prohibition of ear cropping

• Prohibition of vocal cordectomy (commonly called “debarking”)

• Prescriptive care standards for housing, food, water, exercise and grooming

• Promotion of spay/neuter

• In my case, avoidance of spay/neuter!

• Prohibition of dewclaw removal

• Establishment of breed standards

• Kind treatment in animal shelters

• Euthanasia in shelters as a necessary evil

• Establishment of breeding criteria (age, number of litters, and the like)

• Limiting how many animals one can legally own

• Expectation of health testing of breeding stock

• Prohibition of crossbreeding

• Prohibition of inbreeding

• Limiting registrations, whether for cause or arbitrarily

• Tethering limits

Even such activities as dog racing, dog sledding, and other traditional pursuits are sometimes considered abusive and contrary to animal welfare.

So, exactly how far should the tenets of animal welfare extend into our lives? How much outsider intervention in animal husbandry is acceptable?

While I am sympathetic to many of the above “animal welfare” proposals, I am adamantly opposed to the government or anyone else attempting to force their ideals regarding care standards on the rest of society.


Dogs and cats are what’s for dinner in some countries. That’s not an appetizing picture to me, but I’m sure some people in other countries feel differently. When you consider that the overwhelming majority of people in western culture revere and adore their dogs and cats, we're really not hard-hearted and bereft of animal welfare concerns after all is said and done.

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.

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."