Climate Control

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

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

Because it's just plain not true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trojan Horse

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/7aqm66y

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

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

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

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

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.

Banning pet shop animal sales

I was recently asked this question:

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

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

Two reasons spring to mind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plato 

Debunking Pet "Overpopulation":

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

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

"Forever" is a long, long time

"I am a Forever Dog"

There's a warm and fuzzy message! Sounds good, no? If you can't keep a dog forever, then you shouldn't own one! Just fuggedaboudit. 

This sort of black-and-white thinking, this dogmatic mentality (pardon the pun) is further evidence of why we have so many intrusive and oppressive laws proposed.

• We say, you should spay/neuter your pets; they say, hey, let's make it the law.
• We say, microchipping saves lives; they say, great idea! let's make it mandatory.
• We say, to breed responsibly, you should belong to a breed club and do health testing, Hmmm, let's make it a law that ONLY those who belong to breed clubs with enforced codes of ethics can buy a breeder's permit.
• We say, don't breed too often; they say, OK let's make a legal limit of one litter per year.
• "Keep your numbers down and don't expect to make any money" we advise each other; they say, if you own a kennel or make money, you are a grubby puppy-miller. 
• We say, "rescue is noble, let's help make sure our breed doesn't add to the shelter population"; they say, "Don't breed or buy while shelter dogs die" .......... "Adopt, don't shop!" Pet sales become outlawed except for rescues
• We say, "Make sure when you get a dog it's not an impulse purchase"; they say, "A dog is forever" and forbid pet shop sales, or advertising in newspapers or via the internet. You'd better have your sales and breeding permit numbers displayed, and you'd better not transfer ownership in public.  (Oddly enough, it's OK to impulse purchase rescued animals in pet shops or at adoption fairs.)

Life changes, stuff happens. Sometimes the dog does not work out for the situation. Working dogs go where they are needed. You lose your job and maybe your home, you get sick or perhaps even die....the dog needs to be re-homed. Breeding dogs might be sold to new owners. Someone moves, a friend or relative takes their dog. A serviceman is relocated, and his dog needs a foster home, or a new home. Breeders may place their "retirees" in pet homes.

The "Forever Home" propaganda is just another crafty animal extremist method of discouraging pet ownership, and demonizing pet owners. Don't fall for it!

Buyer Beware

crowd of postop frontal lobotomy patients

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





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



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



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

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



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


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


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


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


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

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



Pet store protest bimbos



Photo of bimbo from "D Cups Saving Teacups" website


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Source:


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


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


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


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

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

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

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



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




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

  

Do Pet Store Dogs Fill Shelters?

I've long suspected that people who pay a pretty penny for their pet are not likely to allow it to end up in an animal shelter. And, it turns out, there is a study that confirms this theory. A Las Vegas shelter collects data on their intakes. Here is an excerpt from an article written on the subject:

'Officials should focus on finding the origin of the animals that rescue groups, shelters and animal control agencies come in contact with, said Harold Vosko, co-founder of Las Vegas-based Heaven Can Wait Animal Sanctuary. Without accurate information on the source of the crisis, addressing it is impossible, he said.'

'Statistics collected over the past two years at Heaven Can Wait showed more than 85 percent of the animals came from a neighbor or friend’s litter, Vosko said. Fewer than 5 percent were from pet stores and no more than 1 percent or 2 percent were from professional breeders.'

Wow. Pretty sobering statistics.

'The Lied Animal Foundation, which operates the regional shelter, recently started asking people how they obtained their pets, said Jason Smith, who took over as director of operations about six weeks ago. The data will help Lied shape how it educates the community about responsible pet ownership.'

Wonderful! Actual problem-solving in action!

And, there are further thoughtful comments about mandated spay and neuter:

'The AKC has no problem with spaying and neutering pets, Sondej said, the concern is requiring it by a certain age. Some breeds are still growing into their second year, and early sterilization can lead to adverse physical effects, he said.'

'Michael Maddox, director of legislative affairs for the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council in Washington, D.C., said requiring animals to be sterilized before sale isn’t reasonable or in the animal’s best interest. Nor does it address the underlying problem. The “overwhelming majority” of pets in shelters come from sources other than pet stores, Maddox said.'

Good to know that there are some people out there who are interested enough to investigate and find out the truth about owner-surrendered animals and where they originate.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/apr/06/animal-breeders-activists-clash-over-bills/

Here's another study. 3.9% of the shelter intakes originated at pet stores. Check out Table 2.

http://www.petpopulation.org/characteristicsofshelter.pdf

But then, that's not surprising, is it? Pet store puppies are just a small percentage of the market in the US.

FOX LA-Journalistic stupidity

http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/local/los-angeles-moves-to-ban-factory-bred-pet-sales-20110607



This article is so full of lies!! Whatever happened to journalistic integrity?


I do not believe in sitting idly by while fools such as yourselves force out of business those who are licensed and inspected, only to create a black market for pets that is getting worse every year. Many “rescues” these days are importing dogs from overseas to meet the demand for pets. This is happening right now in the City of Los Angeles! A “rescue” group here in LA imports dogs and sells them for hundreds of dollars each. Per the “Dogs Without Borders” website: “We currently rescue most dogs from local shelters and strays, but sometimes we rescue dogs from as far away as Taiwan!....Some of the dogs you see on our site are not here in the States.”

Dogs are currently being imported from the Caribbean, Romania, Taiwan and Mexico. These dogs are produced under unknown conditions and bring with them parasites and rabies! There was a case in 2004 of a dog brought up to Los Angeles from Mexico with rabies. First case of rabies here in over 30 years, but with continued imports of foreign strays, I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot more RABIES. Get rid of those who are licensed and inspected would have many adverse unintended consequences.

If Koretz and Barnette really want to help save dogs in shelters, they should attempt to implement some proven methods; increasing the pet limit ceiling is a good first step. More dogs in homes=fewer killed in the dog pound. Lower the ridiculous license fees for intact dogs. $335 per dog per year is outrageous! Repeal the mandatory spay-neuter law. Mandatory spay-neuter laws only cause shelter numbers to increase. It's a FACT that LA shelter intakes have increased by 38% since the mandatory spay-neuter law went into effect. This, after decades of progress and a steady decline in numbers. Good going, Los Angeles! You are a real model for the country. A model of failure!

Pet stores cannot sell dogs from unlicensed, noninspected breeders. How will this law affect anyone else? You know, those evil people who abuse dogs? They do not sell via pet stores!

Claims of high incidence of illness in pet store puppies are totally unsubstantiated. There is evidence that the pet industry provides more veterinary care for puppies than the public at large. DVM/VPI Insurance Group, the largest provider of animal health insurance, testified during a hearing in California that "preconceived notions" concerning pet store puppies "could not have been more wrong."

After insuring more than 89,000 pet store puppies and kittens and handling health claims from a pool of more than 500,000 insured animals, the insurance company reduced its premiums for pet store puppies and kittens substantially by as much as 22 percent compared to premiums charged for animals from other sources. Why? Pet store puppies receive more veterinary attention during the first 12 weeks of age than any other puppies and, as a result, have fewer claims.

Let's debunk the false claim of high number of pet store puppies ending up in shelters.

A Las Vegas shelter collects data on their intakes. Here is an excerpt from an article written on the subject:

'Officials should focus on finding the origin of the animals that rescue groups, shelters and animal control agencies come in contact with, said Harold Vosko, co-founder of Las Vegas-based Heaven Can Wait Animal Sanctuary. Without accurate information on the source of the crisis, addressing it is impossible, he said.'

'The Lied Animal Foundation, which operates the regional shelter, recently started asking people how they obtained their pets, said Jason Smith, who took over as director of operations about six weeks ago. The data will help Lied shape how it educates the community about responsible pet ownership.'

'Statistics collected over the past two years at Heaven Can Wait showed more than 85 percent of the animals came from a neighbor or friend’s litter, Vosko said. Fewer than 5 percent were from pet stores and no more than 1 percent or 2 percent were from professional breeders.'

'Michael Maddox, director of legislative affairs for the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council in Washington, D.C., says, 'The “overwhelming majority” of pets in shelters come from sources other than pet stores.'

Fox LA, DO YOUR HOMEWORK  and stop printing LIES.

“Los Angeles - The City Council today instructed the Department of Animal Services to draft a law banning the commercial breeding of dogs, cats, rabbits and chickens in Los Angeles and the sale of factory-bred animals in pet stores.

The motion, which was introduced by City Councilman Paul Koretz and was approved unanimously, also asks the department to arrange frequent adoption drives for shelter animals at licensed pet stores...Koretz said he unknowingly purchased a "puppy mill" bichon 20 years ago, and it required expensive medical care.

‘This is frequently the case because these animals are inbred and raised in terrible conditions, and that results in medical problems, behavioral problems ... often that leads to those animals winding up in our animal shelters,‘ he said. “

So let’s see...stop the pet stores from selling animals in pet stores (since commercially bred and factory bred, in L.A. City terms, covers EVERYONE), but “ask” them to sell animals from shelters instead. IOW, yeah, you can sell animals, but only when your inventory comes from shelters. Especially since most animals in shelters come from puppy mills (which, according to Koretz, et al, is synonymous with commercial breeders and factory bred). So the pet stores are continuing to sell the same animals, but all the income goes to the shelters. What a deal! Not for the legitimate pet stores, only for the shelter pet stores, but that doesn’t matter, does it?

All of this, apparently, because Koretz “unknowingly purchased a ‘puppy mill‘ bichon 20 years ago,“ which I guess he knew came from a PM because it required expensive medical care. I guess that would be one of those puppy mill dogs that end up in shelters, which the shelters then get to sell at pet stores now that the pet stores aren’t allowed to sell them. Ain’t guv’mint great?

All of which might have been avoided if Paul “head up his ass” Koretz had purchased his freaking Bichon from a responsible breeder. But he didn’t know to do that because he had his head up his...well, you get my drift.

http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/946/2003/02/06/FillingEmptyPounds

Filling Empty Dog Pounds

As U.S. shelters help solve local stray problems, a Tufts expert says many are importing dogs from other countries to meet demand for animal adoptions. No. Grafton, Mass.

No. Grafton, Mass. [02.06.03] At local animal shelters around the country, the dogs up for adoption may be a lot further from home than many people would imagine. With stray animals on the decline in many communities, but interest in adoption still high, a Tufts expert says many shelters are importing stray animals from around the world to meet the demand.
"Animal shelters in the USA are casting a wide net - from Puerto Rico to as far as Taiwan - to fill kennels," reported USA Today. "Critics say many shelters have solved the stray problem in their own area - but rather than shut down, they become de facto pet stores. Some charge more than $200 per adoption for imported dogs."
According to Tufts' Gary Patronek - the director of Tufts' Center for Animals and Public Policy at the University's School of Veterinary Medicine - U.S. shelters may be a victim of their own successes.
"The drive to have dogs spayed and neutered in the USA has cut down on unwanted litters. And adoption campaigns have helped empty dog pounds," reported USA Today. "But [the Tufts expert says] people who want to adopt dogs increasingly find aged dogs or undesirable breeds like pit bulls at shelters."
Imported animals are filling the demand.
"In the last seven years, one organization in Puerto Rico has shipped more than 14,000 strays to the states for adoption," reported the newspaper. "Shipments from other countries also appear to be increasing. Most imports are small to medium-size dogs popular among adopters."
In order to enter the U.S., the imported animals do not need to be quarantined - having certificates of good health and proof of rabies shots are sufficient.
"But Patronek said bringing dogs in from abroad runs a serious risk of importing a disease," reported the Scottish newspaper The Scotsman.
According to the Tufts expert, "What makes it so scary is that you just don't know what might emerge if you aren't at least looking for it."
And despite their similarities, shelters and pet stores have important distinctions from one another.
"[Patronek says] not-for-profit shelters may be chartered to insure animal welfare, but they are relatively unregulated," reported USA Today. "Pet shops, on the other hand, generally operate under more stringent state and local regulations."
But some pet owners don't mind that the stray animals they've adopted are from other countries, not their local communities.
"I read a lot about how hard their lives are in Puerto Rico," Marianna Massa - who adopted two imported stray dogs - told USA Today. "It just affected me so much. I had to do something. If I had a farm, I'd have more."

Apparently, LA City Councilmember Paul Koretz is proposing a ban on the sale of commercially bred dogs, cats and rabbits in Los Angeles. This was presented as a ban on pets from "puppy mills," that undefined term which has lately been applied to breeders of any kind.

Perfect example of that incremental chip-away factor. First it’s puppy mills, then commercial breeders, then pet stores, then anyone who ever breeds a litter. So if Joe Blow’s dog accidentally has an “intimate moment” with his neighbor’s bitch, he won’t be able to make a buck off the puppies, so they’ll be let loose in traffic or dumped at the shelter. Not that I recommend this type of unplanned breeding, but it happens. The how or why isn’t the point. What IS the point is that Joe’s puppies will end up dead.

Wait, I forget, what’s the purpose of this type of legislation? To protect animals? Well, of course, what was I thinking? PETA has always said animals are better off dead than living on this planet with evil humans. When the intention of these laws is to end our association with animals, ALL animals, death is as good a way as any, right?

Hey, Paul, it’s working! Koretz is not Korect, he’s Korupt.