Swap Meet Sales Targeted by Animal Rights Fanatics

I received the below message in my email inbox today. Here we have the quintessential example of the deception foisted upon society by animal rights fanatics. The message features pictures of puppies and kittens while imploring us to help stop sales of animals at swap meets.

 

Problem is, dogs and cats aren't generally sold at swap meets. What we would normally find sold at swap meets, auctions, fairs etc are various birds like parakeets, canaries and finches, along with assorted farm animals such as chickens, ducks, sheep, goats and so on. No puppies. No kittens.

 

But truth means nothing to these animal rights nuts. And even while we have come to expect them to routinely lie through their teeth about animal issues, still they needs to be taken to task occasionally.

 

What in the world is inherently "wrong" with offering animals for sale in a public place? This practice has existed since the dawn of human history, but now is suddenly taboo in the minds of a population that is increasingly urban and severed from agrarian roots. The very act of selling an animal is "abuse"? Absurd! And even one were to offer dogs and cats for sale in public, so what? There is nothing cruel about selling dogs and cats.

 

There is another arena targeted by AR groups as inherently "abusive" even when no blatant abuse is evident....the sales of animals in pet stores. Elizabeth Oreck of "Best Friends" is at all the hearings in southern California lobbying to prohibit sales of animals in pet shops. Instead of having purposely-bred dogs and cats available to consumers, she would like us to instead have only "rescued" animals available.

 

Because, you see, animals can be offered as impulse purchases in a pet store as long as they are from unscrupulous origins, with questionable genetic backgrounds and sketchy health histories. If originating from a known entity and  having received veterinary care since birth, the animals obviously would not be suitable for pets and should therefore be forbidden by law. Makes perfect sense.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for finding homes for animals that need them, but "rescue" is an industry that is completely unregulated. Dogs are imported from other areas, other states and even other countries to provide inventory for many shelters and rescues. (Check our post "It's Raining Dogs From Other Countries" for the proof of that statement.) With nationwide shelter intakes and death rates at the lowest point ever, we no longer can legitimately claim that "overpopulation" and "abandonment" are the pressing issues that they once were. Our nation is on the right track, and we need not fall for the animal rights propaganda to further their agenda of a future devoid of domestic animals.

 

The message below is a typical AR manipulative tool, rife with hypotheses contrary to fact and the overall "red herring" deception of conflating pets with livestock in the mind of the public. How much longer are we going to let them get away with their lies and deception? Enough already!

 

I believe the free market works, and it will work naturally to regulate the pets available for sale. Sick and overpriced pets don't sell very well (unless of course they are sold by "rescues" and shelters.) Allow consumers freedom of choice in the market and let the chips fall where they may.

 

These AR groups are allowed to blatantly LIE in their advertising and their lobbying. No other group of sales people could get away with such unethical behavior. Where is the California Attorney General?

 

 

 

 

 

CA: Let's Put an End to Swap Meet Animal Sales     Dear Friends,   Existing law in California prohibits the sale of animals in most unregulated public venues, such as parking lots, alleys and highways. However, the law does not include swap meets and flea markets, which has created a major loophole for irresponsible and unscrupulous breeders to sell their animals virtually under the radar. These sales contribute to unhealthy animals and breeding practices, overpopulation and animal abandonment.   Fortunately, Assembly Bill 339 has been introduced to close that loophole by prohibiting the sale of animals at swap meets and flea markets. This bill is designed to protect purchasers who may unknowingly buy an animal that is unhealthy or too young, or from a pet mill or backyard breeder who doesn't provide safe and humane conditions for the animals bred and sold.   Your representatives need to hear that you care about the way animals are treated and that you support this important bill to protect pets and consumers. Please urge your representatives to support Assembly Bill 339.     Click here to take action now.   Thank you for all you do for animals.     Warmest regards,   Elizabeth Oreck National Manager, puppy mill initiatives puppymills.bestfriends.org

 

 

 

__._,_.___

 

   

.

__,_._,___

Oregon Has to Stem the Tide of Yellow Journalism



Unsourced photo attached to referenced article. We don't know exactly what is going on here, or where the picture is from. But hey, it LOOKS dramatic, and the emotional impact is more important than any actual FACTS.


Just read a ridiculous article today (see link below), claiming that because "rescues" are bringing dogs from California to Oregon, California must surely have a surplus of pets. "California Has to Stem the Tide of Dogs" the headline blares. These relocated pets, according to this article, are riddled with disease, suffer from severe emotional distress and are kept in horrific conditions.

Well, claim #3 may not be far from the truth. Lord knows that some of these "rescues" lately have been busted for keeping their charges in abusive and negectful conditions.

While I agree that dogs should not be transported across state lines for purpose of “rescue”, most of this article is emotional histrionics with no basis in facts. Firstly, the misconception that the state of California is lax on sterilization and that is the reason that dogs are being transferred to other states is DEAD WRONG.

Under the Vincent Law, passed way back in 1998, California state shelters are mandated to sterilize all dogs and cats prior to release. Of course, this law was also based on the false premise that shelter problems are caused by failure to spay/neuter. It failed to take into account that, in 1998, shelter numbers had dramatically declined from the 1970s and 1980s...WITHOUT any mass spay-neuter, or forcing people to sterilize their adopted dog or cat.

But even as shelter numbers continued to decline, we couldn't leave well enough alone. Several local areas decided to pass laws requiring all pets to be sterilized. The most densely-populated areas of the state like Los Angeles County have had mandatory spay and neuter laws for several years now. And them, guess what happened? You got it, after those laws were passed, shelter intakes and deaths increased. That is the norm; such foolish, punitive and coercive laws always cause higher shelter intakes everywhere they have been tried. And, some people out there don't necessarily WANT their pets spayed/neutered as they are aware of the negative health consequences that often accompany such drastic measures.
Next, IF these shelter animals are in such horrific condition, how about holding the government shelters responsible for that, rather than spouting a stock meanigless reply about "overpopulation"? Aren't shelters the ones releasing these animals? At least, that is what is being reported here. IF the reporting is in any way reliable.

Shelters sending out dogs laden with parasites and rife with various diseases? Somehow I doubt that. But, even if true, abuse is abuse, whether the animals are being cared for by a private party, a state-run shelter, or a largely unregulated "rescue" operation.

And just because it's called a "shelter" or a "rescue" doesn't necessarily mean there's anything humane going on.

The fact is that there are so few pets available in some areas of the state, that shelters and rescues in California are IMPORTING DOGS from other states and even other countries.

That's right. “Dogs Without Borders” in Los Angeles will order you a dog from as far away as Taiwan. The Helen Woodward Humane Society in San Diego County has shipped in dogs from the south for years, and imports dogs from Europe...specifically from Romania....every month. Compassion Without Borders" has long brought homeless stray dogs into California for the rescue trade. Golden Retriever Rescue LA imports dogs from Taiwan. Beagle rescue flew 40 dogs from Spain into Los Angeles. Then we have Save a Mexican Mutt, who obviously bring up mutts from Mexico.

Gotta restock the store shelves, you know.

Now here's another interesting factoid that those in Oregon probably haven't considered. The US Border patrol did a survey recently and discovered that over 10,000 dogs and puppies are smuggled into San Diego County from Mexico, each and every year.

That's because the shelters in San Diego County rarely have any adoptable dogs.

The group “Wings of Rescue” admits that, over the past few years, it has cherry-picked about 2,000 of the most desirable young and small breed dogs from California's shelters to re-sell in Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia.

WHY is this happening? Why are animals being relocated from one area to another?

Because there is a shortage of pets in some areas.

Having a pet SHORTAGE is not desirable either. A shortage drives up prices, and promotes the black market sales of animals and indiscriminate breeding for quantity, not quality.

But the misguided well-meaning "rescuers" and the less-altruistic animal rights kooks won't rest until all pets in this country are sterilized. They dream of the day when there is a shortage of pets across the nation, just as there already exists a shortage in selected areas such as the New England states and the Pacific Northwest region. They'll be glad to fill the void with pets from Mexico, the Caribbean, Taiwan and other distant locales. (Shhh!! Some of them actually make money doing this!)

Now, let's conduct a little exercise in shelter math, shall we?

According to California's 2011 state shelter statistics (the latest year for which statistics are available) there were 176,907 dogs euthanized for the entire year in California's shelters. We don't know how many of these were adoptable dogs, but most shelter experts estimate that roughly half of all dogs killed are adoptable (ie not sick, injured or aggressive)

The population of California stands at just over 38 million. Using all lthis data, we can calculate that there was less than one adoptable dog killed in an animal shelter for every 400 citizens in 2011. That's hardly what anyone with two brain cells to rub together would be stupid enough to call "overpopulation"

Out of 400 people, perhaps just ONE might be looking for a nice dog? Do you think that shelters might possibly be able to find homes for all or even MOST of the adoptable dogs? There is absolutely no reason why not, IF they are doing their job in a proactive manner.

But don't let facts interfere with the spay-neuter propaganda agenda.

http://www.ridenbaugh.com/index.php/2013/01/17/7738/
http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro/index.ssf/2012/12/oregon_welcomes_some_250_dogs.html

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.

Sounds of Silence

Sounds of Silence

The Future of Pets in America
Carole Raschella
Director, California Federation of Dog Clubs

For the past three decades or so, unlike any other country in the civilized world, the United States has been brainwashed into believing that the only good pet is a sterilized pet. No one with even a rudimentary knowledge of biology has ever thought to question the outcome of this bizarre idea, and we are now beginning to suffer the consequences.  There is now a shortage of pets in many parts of the country, although so far, this truth is obscured by several factors. Shelters with an overflow are transporting animals to fill the demand, as are rescue groups, many of which are also bringing in strays from other countries. In addition, hundreds of thousands of dogs are imported every year from third world countries, and thousands more are smuggled in across the border.

The source of this ideology is the Humane Society of the United States, the best known of several extremist animal rights groups, all of which have the same agenda, to eradicate animals from our lives. Their strategy is to work within the political system to lobby for seemingly innocuous, seemingly beneficial, laws, which are designed to make pet ownership more difficult, more expensive and ultimately out of reach. The irony is that, under the guise of helping animals, these groups are funded by those with the most to lose. America’s misguided pet owners.

The most obvious of these laws is the popularity of mandatory spay/neuter legislation. In a country which is already conditioned to spay or neuter its pets, encouraging laws to make sterilization a requirement and not a choice has generally been well-received. Owners who pay a discriminatory high fee to keep their dogs intact find they no longer have a choice. If these owners also breed their dogs, permission to do so now requires an expensive permit, as well as stringent kennel requirements, which, if the current APHIS proposal to the USDA is enacted, will be impossible to meet, and will end most home breeding of healthy American dogs.

Many other regulations are becoming common due to HSUS pressure. Certain breeds, usually pit bulls or any dog that resembles one, are now banned in many areas as dangerous, and other breeds are gradually being added to that list. In addition, an increasing number of apartment owners and housing associations refuse to allow pets, and recreational areas that once welcomed them are no longer doing so.

The latest, and possibly most oppressive, attacks are on the sale and transfer of pets. Most pet shops are no longer allowed to sell live animals at all, which removes an option for pet buyers, and the most recent attempt is to forbid sales of pets sight unseen, supposedly intended to prevent internet sales by suspected “puppy mills,” but also affecting breeders who sell their puppies to buyers in other states.

Last year in the California legislature, Senator Ted Lieu introduced AB1122, a bill which would prevent the sale or transfer of animals in public places, a law which would, among many other things, create difficulties for those who prefer not to allow strangers into their private homes. Fortunately, although the proposal passed through the various committees and was approved by both houses, Governor Schwarzenegger refused to sign it, saying that he was “concerned with the scope and unintended consequences of this bill and that it does not assure the humane and ethical treatment and welfare of animals.”

Undeterred by our former Governor's comments, Senator Lieu revived his proposal the following year as SB917, and this time got it pushed through successfully. In the meantime, Los Angeles Animal Services has devised its own way of creating obstacles to the process by imposing a newly created “Transfer Permit” of 120.00 on anyone who sells, transfers or gives away an animal. So, if  Susie wants to give a kitten to her dear aunt in San Diego and arranges to meet her halfway at a restaurant, it will cost her 120.00 for the privilege of doing so. Her other option, I suppose, would be to leave the cat at her local shelter, which would cost her nothing. They’ll even kill it for free. Unintended consequences.

Where will it end? Will we continue to fumble along, ignoring what is going on around us, perhaps expecting someone else to take care of it, until the day comes when we are ready for that next obedience prospect, that conformation hopeful, or just a new pet for the family…and instead of the charming squeals of a puppy, all we get is a resounding silence?

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

Shelter Solutions

California’s “Hayden Law”, enacted in 1998, extended the mandatory holding period for shelter animals from 72 hours to four to six business days. It encouraged shelters to work proactively to place animals and reduce euthanasia rates. The provisions of the Hayden law have been loosely adhered to over the past decade and a half, and this has resulted in great improvements in shelter practices in the State of California. Because this extended hold is a statewide mandate, the state must reimburse local shelters for their costs.



California is just plain flat broke, and for the past few years hasn’t had the money to reimburse shelters the $23 million dollars per year it owes them under Hayden. But besides just plain not having the money to fund this mandate, another problems is the fact that the state reimbursement is only paid to shelters for animals who are ultimately killed. Those animals reclaimed by their owners, sent to rescues or placed for adoption must have their impound expenses paid for by the agencies or individuals who take them from the shelter, and not by the state. Shelters may not be as proactive as necessary because they will, in theory at least, receive reimbursement for animals that are killed. Laws with good intention often come with unintended consequences, and the Hayden law is no exception, as it has served as a disincentive for adoption.


Most shelters currently hold dogs and cats much longer than the prescribed four to six days anyhow, and even if the Hayden law is repealed in whole or in part, shelters would most certainly not be REQUIRED to kill in three days. They can continue with their current best practices and techniques. Adoptions and numbers of pets sent out to rescues are at an all-time high. No one wants to kill, we hear from the shelters.

Los Angeles County holds animals for an average of eleven days, and the City of Los Angeles holds them for an average of nine days. Well beyond any state legal requirement. Since there has been no state reimbursement since 2009, there will be no real substantive change in conditions with a repeal of the reimbursement mandate. The law will just be altered to reflect the reality of the state’s inability to fund local shelters.


Besides, there are plenty of other action, progressive actions, that could be taken to reduce the burden on animal shelters.


Here are just a few that could help:


• Raise the limit on the number of dogs someone can own. Why is "3" a magic number – especially if they’re small?


• Stop raiding places where the dogs are fine. Stop confiscating dogs from kennels where the dogs aren’t sick, in danger, or dying. Then there wouldn’t BE so many in the shelters. OH – and if there’s NO ROOM at the shelter, then don’t confiscate what you can’t take care of!


• Start doing a better job of identifying what breed the animals in shelters belong to - THEN maybe they’ll be placed in appropriate rescue groups, or sold to people who will know what to expect when it comes to behavior – and the boomerang effect will be broken.


• How about lowering the price of shelter dogs and dog licenses – so people can AFFORD to own one.


• Stop the 2-tiered fee scam which requires a higher license fee for intact animals. Most of the owned dogs and cats in our state have already been castrated anyhow. But there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that intact owned animals are any more a burden on society than sterilized ones.


• Stray or feral animals are the ones who are problematic, but they don’t have OWNERS to sterilize them. Feral cats comprise the majority of intakes and deaths. Trap-neuter and release of feral cats is a proven solution that few animal control departments use. I guess it’s easier to continue to blame animal owners for all the animals out there who don’t have owners.


• Stop the exaggerations about the numbers of dogs that are pure-bred. Many shelter workers have personally told me, and I’ve seen it, that there are VERY few. The ads/promos make it sound like the shelter has ALL the breeds, just come and get one. People go looking for a pure-bred – and they’re not there. There are many excellent reasons for purebreds – including some idea of personality, size, and behavior – not to mention benefits of specific breeds for people with allergies.


• Provide incentives for apartment owners to allow pets.


• Picked up a stray with a license or a valid microchip? Give it a free ride home. Stop charging up the ying-yang with outrageous impound fees so high that people can’t afford to bail their pet out.


• Stop the mass importation of stray dogs from Mexico, Taiwan, the Caribbean, Spain, Brazil, etc. Shelters and rescues import thousands every year.


• Make the shelters report legitimate numbers – and NOT count the dogs multiple times, NOT count those who are Dead On Arrival, and NOT count the ones brought in at the end of their lives for a merciful death.


• Take the funds that encourage illegal aliens to take up residence and live in comfort and distribute them to the shelter system instead.


• Stop making it more profitable for the shelters to kill than to rescue. Hey – make them WORK with rescue groups.


• Stop the unionization of the shelter workers. No union will EVER agree to a reduction in their work force or anything that might affect their job security.


• FINALLY – HSUS, PETA and other sham organizations could give some of their ill-gotten SCAM monies to our shelters.


• Just STOP making laws that make it more difficult and more expensive for people to own a pet.


Our legislators should be able to come up with many more ideas – that are NOT onerous to pet-owners, that encourage people to have pets, and that would shrink the shelter population.

(Thank you Carol Hamilton for all these great suggestions!)

Dogs Rule at Westminster

"Maverick" a rescued Weimaraner, to participate in this year's Westminster Kennel Club show!

The Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show spotlights the creme de la creme of the dog world. And in a curious twist of fate, the world of canine rescue is also a hot topic of discussion at this year's show.


In one of the most heartwarming stories ever, we learn of a Weimaraner named Maverick. Maverick's owner purchased him from Craigslist a couple of years ago. Seems Maverick was in very poor condition, underweight, neglected and unhealthy. But within a few months, under the tender loving care of his new owner, Maverick began to go to dog shows....and win...and win big....and as a Grand Champion, he will now be a participant in Westminster, the most prestigious show of the year.

Maverick's owner feels that his dog was a “rescue”. Indeed, Maverick could well have ended up in a shelter or rescue had he not been sold on Craigslist. Had that happened, Maverick would almost certainly have been neutered. What a pity that would have been for the Weimaraner world.

I've often thought that the requirement to spay/neuter every rescued dog was not only unnecessary, and potentially detrimental to health, but also contributes to narrowing of breed gene pools. Canine geneticists advise us to keep as many individuals as possible in a breed's gene pool. Genetic diversity is necessary to maintain overall health, vigor, longevity, fertility and optimal immune system function. In the case of purebreds, spay/neuter of all rescues is a very unwise move that reduces genetic diversity. While of course we must be discriminating in selecting individuals for breeding, considering health and good temperament, it's also a beneficial goal to include as many individuals in breeding programs as possible to help promote diversity and avoid the pitfalls of inbreeding. Another benefit of genetic diversity is lower incidence of breed-specific genetic health problems.

Wholescale spay/neuter, along with over-use for breeding of just a few dogs deemed exceptional, dangerously narrows the gene pools of our breeds. Maverick’s story is a success story not only for him and for his owner, but for his future generations. They would never be born if the typical “rescue” ending of a routinely performed neuter had spelled the end of Maverick’s tale. Thankfully, Maverick’s genes were ultimately preserved.

Animal rights groups have convinced us that it is merciful to spay and neuter all the animals that pass through a shelter or rescue situation. They imply that breeding is a cruel fate for animals. I think they are wrong. Dogs enjoy the activity of raising their young, just as we do.


And speaking of animal rights groups and Westminster, we also learned this past week of the termination of the Pedigree “Dogs Rule” advertising/adoption campaign that has been held during the Westminster KC show for the past several years. In my case, there was an immediate visceral objection to seeing presented abused and neglected rescued dogs (very few of which were intentionally-bred purebreds) at an event of this nature. Animal rights groups do believe that purebred dog breeding is to blame for shelter intakes and they make no bones about voicing that opinion. Even the narrator of the Pedigree commercials, David Duchovny, is an “animal rights” proponent and a PETA supporter.


So, way back in 2007, I was curious about the Pedigree campaign which was jointly conducted with the American Humane Association.


I checked out the American Humane Association website, to see where they stood on issues. The page I referenced has since disappeared and the website has been streamlined, but I looked at their website and discovered that:

• They support AR agenda legislation in various states.
• They advocate for mandatory, pre-pubescent spay-neuter.
• They oppose medical research using animals.
• They promote various “freedoms” for farm animals.
• They oppose commercial, for-profit breeding, slurring this as “puppy mills”, and state that this is inherently cruel.
• They support “guardianship” as opposed to “ownership”.
• They oppose any and all tail docking, ear cropping, debarking or declawing.
• They oppose racing and coursing.
• They support mandatory microchipping.

The AHA was surely laughing at us, because they were successful in perpetuating the image of show dogs as the source of shelter intakes. And they did it at the biggest kennel club event of the year! And the dog breeders actually CHEERED for them!


I found it curious that during the Pedigree drive and fundraiser conducted during the Westminster KC show in 2007, there was never any mention of the many breed rescue groups, run primarily by breeders and breed club volunteers. I did not pay much attention to the commercials in subsequent years, so I don’t know if breed rescue ever was mentioned.


The Pedigree commercials referred to AKC show dogs as “lucky”….saying shelter dogs are “not as lucky as the show dogs you see here”. The implication was that these show dogs are the few, the minority, that most dogs end up at shelters. Not true. A very small percentage of dogs end up at animal shelters each year….check the nationwide numbers, it is around 3-4% of owned dogs. The vast majority of dogs in the US are cared for in a responsible and humane manner, and do not end up abandoned. Sometimes, I think it is too easy to forget that, especially for those who work day-to-day in a stressful shelter or rescue setting.


It’s not a result of “luck” that the vast majority of dogs lead a good life. It is the result of plenty of hard work, effort and dedication on the part of their owners. But mostly, it's the result of our love affair with our dogs. Westminster is a quintessential display of that affection we hold for "man's best friend".


Responsible ownership and breeding is constantly under attack from AR groups. Good riddance to the Pedigree commercials at Westminster.

Remember, it was just a couple of years ago that PETA interrupted the Westminster show with their cheap shot-style protests. Maybe that is when the club decided enough was enough and to sever ties with animal rights groups:

http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/2010/02/parade-of-mutants-seen-in-westminster.html


"Rescued Weimaraner to show at Westminster":

http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2012/02/rescued-weimaraner-to-show-at-westminster-2012/


"Pedigree replaced as Westminster sponsor":
http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/pedigree-replaced-as-westminster-sponsor-after-24-years/

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.

PUPS - "What Can We Do"?

PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety) is the federal proposal that anyone who owns (or co-owns) even ONE intact bitch be brought under commercial regulations, if he also sells (or offers for sale) fifty dogs in a year. 

This measure is sponsored by the HSUS, so we know that the number "50" is arbitrary and will be reduced with future amendments. No need to reduce the number of intact bitches because anyone with an ownership interest in ONE intact bitch (as young as four months old) would be automatically included. Co-ownerships are specifically mentioned; it's possible that such things as breeding rights and puppy back contracts may also "count" in one way or another as your sales numbers are tabulated.

PUPS erases the line between those who sell at wholesale and those who sell at retail. Currently, retail sellers are regulated locally. PUPS is an effort to bring those who sell at retail (like anyone who advertises with a personal website) under the auspices of the federal Animal Welfare Act. Contrary to the claims of PUPS supporters it does NOT apply only to internet sales. PUPS includes breeders who place pets "via any means of conveyance"; internet ads/websites, newspaper, telephone, dog show contacts and so on.

Requiring hobby breeders to follow USDA rules would force many people to give up hobby breeding entirely. Commercial rules forbid keeping dogs in your house, and instead require that an expensive kennel facility be built. Carpet, grass and upholstered furniture (like a couch or chair) is forbidden in the dog areas. Raising pups in your bedroom instead of a kennel would not be allowed. Dogs must be kept in runs with cement floors, roof-style covers, an adequate ventilation system and floor drains for sanitation protocols which are also regulated. The cost of building such facilities would be out of reach for the vast majority of breeders.

Other rules that would be difficult if not impossible for hobby breeders to meet include submission to unannounced inspections and meeting ambiguous exercise requirements.

The USDA is currently criticised for lax enforcement of existing law. In 2008, the USDA had 99 inspectors who conducted 15,722 inspections or re-inspections on facilities including 4,604 licensed breeders and 1,116 licensed brokers. The numbers of facilities/homes that would be added by PUPS would be in the thousands, adding additional strain on the existing system. PUPS would result in fewer inspections of the large, commercial breeders the AWA was intended to regulate in the first place.

Along with many other canine groups, AKC opposes PUPS, stating:

 

The AKC also has a number of serious concerns with the bill as introduced and does not support this measure.

(You can read their concerns and the full alert at the link below)

http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4543

One of best PUPS opposition statements belongs to the national cat registry association, CFA, even though PUPS doesn't even apply to them (doesn't apply YET - which is the whole idea of why they oppose):

http://www.cfa.org/Client/exhibitorsalert.aspx

There is a version of PUPS in the Senate, and a version in the House of Representatives. Presumably, this makes it easier to get it pushed through quickly once the votes are there. And, at last count, there were 196 congressional sponsors for PUPS; more are signing on every day. Once they get around 220 or so they will have enough votes to pass and it just might be brought up at that time. There is talk that PUPS may never come to a vote because the USDA may amend the AWA and then it might be a moot point. We can hope!

There's a new legislative site that allows you to contact your legislators quickly and let them know when you support or oppose proposed legislation.

Click on the two Popvox links below to urge your legislator to oppose PUPS in both House and Senate:

US Senate PUPS
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s707

US House of Representatives PUPS
https://www. popvox.com/ bills/us/ 112/hr835

The entire rationale for PUPS is to try to "catch" people who are breeding commercially and selling directly to the public via the internet. However, people who attempt to skirt the law now will not be more likely to comply if a new law is passed. Instead, we will lose many conscientious breeders who are the best sources for healthy, well-bred dogs in this country. The language of PUPS would also bring rescue groups and other resellers under onerous federal rules. Many of these groups use the internet (websites or puppyfind-type services) to find homes for their animals. All retailers who sell directly to the public should remain under local regulation.

Please take a minute to contact your senator and congressman. Popvox makes it quick and easy.

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.

"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!