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

 

 

 

__._,_.___

 

   

.

__,_._,___

Love Hurts

Americans have always had a love affair with pets. Stories about pets are common subjects for “human interest” pieces in news publications. We read about dogs who save human lives and the lives of their canine companions. We read stories about long-lived dogs, talented dogs and ugly dogs. We read about dogs who are so faithful to their owners that they remain steadfast at their gravesite.

Cats also provide displays of affections for their owners that inspire news reports. We read about Toldo, an Italian cat who regularly visits the grave of his deceased owner. The man’s widow, Ada, said the cat “brings little twigs, leaves, toothpicks, plastic cups. A bit of everything really,” everyday to the grave of his former owner who has now been deceased for over a year. 1

Then there was the story just this week about the cat in Florida who spent nearly two months walking home after being lost from the owner’s motor vehicle almost 200 miles from home. 2

We also often read stories about animal cruelty and abuse. Tales of “hoarding” and “puppy mills” grab the interest and sell news. These stories serve to solicit contributions by the organizations who are the self-appointed saviors of abused animals. This is mostly a black-and-white issue, or so it might appear on the surface. Animal abusers need to be stopped and they need to be punished, while animal saviors desperately need our financial support. A no-brainer, right?

Well, maybe things aren’t quite as black-and-white as they might seem. Some “abusers” have themselves been affected by financial ruin, a sudden turn in their health, loss of job or home, or even a death in the family. All these factors can affect the ability to care properly for their pets. Even if the accused abuser is completely broke, or physically or mentally disabled, the reports of abuse are completely lacking in sympathy for the person down on his or her luck. Oftentimes, rabid followers publicly call for a lynching of purported “abusers”. If we were talking about children in these households instead of animals, there would be assistance available. Instead, we deliver only scorn.

Pet “rescue” on the other hand, has become the trendy activity. “My pet was rescued” Jane announces proudly. Her friends and relatives congratulate her for her largesse. Win-win, she gets to enjoy a companion and get a boost to her self-esteem at the same time. Proclaiming that you just BOUGHT a new puppy or kitten does not produce the same warm public accolades. On the contrary, you may be derided with jeers about supporting evil breeders, causing shelter deaths and contributing to pet overpopulation (all of these silly notions have been thoroughly debunked here in the past).

And never mind the fact that you do BUY pets from rescues. They aren’t giving them away, folks!

Then, oddly enough, we sometimes also have cases of saviors-turned-abusers. There are also plenty of news stories recounting tales of animal “rescues” where the care has gone sour, and the animals have to be rescued from the rescuer. Generally, what happens in such cases is that a rescue entity becomes overloaded with more animals than it has the resources to care for. Now, the very group that we trusted to “rescue” has suddenly become the “hoarder”. How can that be? How can a hero one day become a villain the next?

“Hoarder”, “abuser”, and “puppy mill” are all pejorative slurs that are thrown about handily in the popular news media. Similarly brainless terms like “rescue” and “shelter” are thrown about in a self-congratulatory, feel-good manner, when in actuality they are meaningless and do not necessarily reflect any actual beneficence on the part of the person or group being described. Such stereotypical monikers do not often reflect reality, and that is a major reason why we should refrain from using them.

Americans donate to various animal charities by hand over fist each year. The ASPCA rakes in $144 million per year, with net assets of $188 million, while the HSUS receives about $177 million each year. 3

This is mostly accomplished through donations from a generous, pet-loving public who are urged by these self-appointed saviors to please donate a certain monthly amount. Say around $19 a month? Just a suggestion, since hey, you really want to help poor suffering animals. “Look at these horrific pictures and please open your wallet!!!” And people do, by the hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year.

In February, 2012, a cat “rescue” called Caboodle Cat Ranch Sanctuary near Tallahassee, Florida was raided. The rescuer had hundred of cats on the premises. Animal rights operatives spent many months gathering up “evidence” in the form of photographs taken of sick animals that were being housed on the premises. The cats were removed from the rescue and remanded to the care of the local law enforcement agency. ASPCA immediately stepped in and sent literally HUNDREDS of people in to care for the cats.4


The ASPCA subsequently asked for $1.8 million dollars in reimbursement for care of
these “rescued” cats. From their website:

“In a letter to the judge, Director Tim Rickey of the ASPCA details how $1.2 million [as of June 22] has been spent on care for Caboodle Ranch cats. In addition to medical care and basic necessities, the cats are receiving behavioral enrichment to “remedy the effects of the severe neglect and lack of socialization they experienced during their time at Caboodle Ranch.”

Problem is, the itemized list of expenses was released to the public, and very little of those expenses were related to actual care of the cats. Most of it was for airfare, hotels and meals for the humans involved. The expense statement the ASPCA turned in was simply outrageous! Listing “plumbing”, “carpet cleaning”, “chocolates for the ladies”, “lunch at Panera’s for 100+” (totaling over 1200.00), resort hotels, $400 thousand in airfares and rental cars and the list of vacation expenses goes on and on. $1000 for snacks in a two-day period. One person even submitted the charge to replace her cell phone battery. What gall! Very little was listed in the way of actual veterinary expenses. 5

On the other hand, the owner of Caboodle cat ranch claimed to be able to produce over $90,000 in veterinary bills for the cats, that he personally had paid when the cats were in his possession. Hmmm. Which “rescue” was truly legit here? The jury seems to be still out on that.

Knowing the manipulative history of animal rights fanatics, I am very skeptical about the Caboodle Cat Ranch Rescue. If you’d like to read more information about the case, check this post on YesBiscuit (and please do read the comments):

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/700-cats-seized-from-cat-sanctuary-in-fl/#comments

So just how reliable is the ASPCA.....really?

Recently, the ASPCA agreed to pay Feld Entertainment a whopping $9.3 million settlement in a suit brought against them under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Seems they manufactured evidence. Are they admitting guilt? It certainly seems so. 6

Well, now we know how the ASPCA will use your $19 per month automatic payments; they will be sending them to the Ringling Brothers circus, even though they originally conspired to bring the circus down. Poetic justice! At least THOSE donations will actually to go care for some animals. Good deal.

The request for the $1.8 million dollars expenses reimbursement was denied. Here is the trial court ruling:

“The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, hereafter referred to as ‘ASPCA’ did NOT have an agency relationship...”

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEJ5J_n7tIqY0hTcEF5VEVyOFE/edit?pli=1

Perhaps the courts are waking up to the blatant abuses of groups who, despite their self-proclaimed sainthood status, are not necessarily the do-gooders one would expect based on their names.




1http://digitaljournal.com/article/340666#ixzz2HVRbXSEo

2 http://www.wafb.com/story/20533966/lost-cat-walks-190-miles-to-get-home

3http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/14/charities-11_American-SPCA_CH0234.html

4http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Caboodle_Ranch_Cat_Sanctuary_Operator_Faces_Cruelty_Charges_140581263.html

5 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhEJ5J_n7tIqdHNTNmJfZ1Fwc2RuazR2RHJpVGVqSmc#gid=0

6 http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/aspca-382414-ringling-elephants.html

The best president....for dogs?

"Obama Beats Romney as Best President for Dogs":

http://www.webvet.com/main/2012/03/21/obama-beats-romney-best-president-dogs?xid=nl_EverydayHealthPetHealth_20120322

Let's see. Obama, after much pressure from his daughters, finally gets a dog. The dog is kept with the White House dog trainer until the Obamas are ready for photo shoots or the kids have time in their schedules to play with him. I think he sleeps with one of the daughters.

And then there is Romney. 

http://aboutmittromney.com/dogs.htm

Pet History (by Mitt's wife, Ann): Our First Dog - Seamus "Mitt and I love our dogs. Seamus was our first--an Irish setter. When I wasn't at home, Mitt let him sleep on the bed. And usually when he was riding in the car, his head was out the window. Seamus lived to a ripe old age, basking in the affection of a large family... "We are a dog family. Casey was our Bichon, McKenzie our Golden, and Marley our Weimaraner. Marley had 8 puppies, which Mitt delivered all night for her one summer. "When she died last year, she was in Mitt and our arms, and we all cried. Yes, we love our dogs. "Now horses, that's my love too. Mitt rides them--I love them. But that's another blog." MittRomneyRoadToTheWhiteHouse.blogspot.com - From Ann Romney - Jun 30, 2007 Seamus was the dog whose care was criticized when The Romneys strapped his crate on the top of the car in order to take him along on a family vacation. Mind you, there was a family of seven in the car, so adding a large dog inside the car was out of the question. I guess they could have left him home or in a kennel, but apparently the dog was considered part of the family. Remember, this was back in 1983. Almost thirty years ago. Back when I was a kid, we rode in the back of dad's pickup truck – even on the freeway! Wind whipping our hair into our eyes. No seat belts. Highly dangerous, but who knew back then? Would we kids have still giggled and screamed with delight had we realized that our dad was a horrible child abuser? Probably.

Anyone who finagles an ingenious method, complete with windshield, for bringing the dog along on a family vacation, and who tells PETA to take a flying leap if they don't like it, is ACES in my book. Oh yeah, and a breeder too! Hooray for Romney!

 

Love of Dogs Passed on to Kids:

(quote from blog entry of Ben Romney)

"Kingsley is half yorkie, half poodle (a yorkie-poo, though I hate to actually admit to owning a dog called a yorkie-poo). He's a great dog, here's a picture if you're interested. Some other Romney pets include an Australian shepherd named Reggie that belongs to Tagg's family and a standard poodle named Winni in Josh's family. You will have to ask my brothers which one is the best behaved."

CommittedtoRomney.com - Dog Blog - Apr 24, 2007

Animal Welfare - AR Lite?

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

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

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

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

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


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

• Prohibition of tail docking

• Prohibition of ear cropping

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

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

• Promotion of spay/neuter

• In my case, avoidance of spay/neuter!

• Prohibition of dewclaw removal

• Establishment of breed standards

• Kind treatment in animal shelters

• Euthanasia in shelters as a necessary evil

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

• Limiting how many animals one can legally own

• Expectation of health testing of breeding stock

• Prohibition of crossbreeding

• Prohibition of inbreeding

• Limiting registrations, whether for cause or arbitrarily

• Tethering limits

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

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

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


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

Crufts - the "Poisoned Chalice"

Too "extreme"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk is English.

ALF originated in England.

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

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

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

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

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

Another breed dumped at Crufts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crufts Latest Political Stunt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's today's sermon.   

Here's the press release from the KC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every Owner is a Responsible Owner

We've heard the claptrap from the animal rights groups about how "every responsible breeder is a puppy miller, every family farmer is factory farmer, and every responsible hunter is a poacher."

But I'd like to step up right here and now and announce that:

EVERY ANIMAL OWNER IS A RESPONSIBLE OWNER

That's right! You are responsible for your animal. You are responsible to care for him, to protect him from suffering, and to nurture him.

The law also regards you as responsible for the actions of your animal. If your animal is roaming at large and causing problems, again, you are going to be the one who must make restitution, and pay any fees or fines.

When it comes to pets, we are a nation of responsible owners. According to the latest pet population survey for 2011-2012, There are 164.6 million owned dogs and cats in the US. 

And further, 39% of all households own at least one dog, and 33% of all households own at least one cat.

That's a lot of responsible owners!

But wait! You say. Not everyone is responsible. Some people discard their pets. Some people neglect or abuse them. What about THOSE people? I am responsible, but others may not be as ethical or conscientious an owner as I am, right?

Sure, there are always a few bad apples in the barrel....people who intentionally abuse or neglect their animals. I believe those folks to be a distinct minority. And, as it turns out, judging by animal shelter statistics, they are only about 2% of all pet owners in the US.

About 6-8 million animals sift through shelters every year; many are unowned feral cats, and about 20% are repeat customers (offenders?). About 10% are dead when picked up (going by California statistics). Considerably less than half are from a bad ownership situation. But calculated out, and figuring on the high end of 4 million per year, this means that only about 2% of all animals that are owned, will end up in a shelter in a given year. And some of those are taken there specifically for humane, end-of-life euthanasia.

Consider further that many animals enter shelters not due to "irresponsibilty" but due to social problems like loss of a job or home foreclosure, or incapacity/death of the owner. So no sense trying to point the finger of blame at those situations. Life happens. We pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and learn from our experiences. That is, after all, the responsible course of action, and it is the natural self-evolution we all undergo as we progress through this life.

We as humans love our animals. We as Americans are responsible animal owners. It's as simple as that.   

A Different Perspective on "Rescue"

“RESCUE”


I started doing what is now called “rescue” in 1981. Not because I set out to save the world one dog at a time but because I was taught it is what you do for your breed. We didn’t call it by the dramatic name of “rescue”. We called it “helping out”, “doing what is right for the breed”, rehoming. There was no need to run around squawking about what a “horrible situation” the dog had been “rescued” from – just take the dog and find the dog a new home. Proclaiming loudly about “abusers” and “hoarders” to raise funds wasn’t done. We found the money and did for the dog. Even as a kid I knew that life is what happens while we are making plans and sometimes bad things happen even to good people. I think we are all aware there are the Vick type monsters out there but I really believe enough in the goodness of mankind that I believe Vick types are the exception NOT the rule. Just my opinion, I guess but also my hope for mankind.


The first dog I took in was a sheltie found by my vet in bad shape, wandering a small town, grazing from dumpsters and handouts. Her nails were too long, her coat matted and she had stiches in her belly that my vet felt indicated a c-section, possibly involving a spay. We assumed that she had been in some kind of breeding facility and maybe dumped after her usefulness was ended. We checked to see if she was simply an escapee but no one claimed her. My vet and I, cleaned her up, vetted her, cut her nails and found her a new home. She showed no signs of “abuse”, just some neglect and some of that could have occurred while on her wanderings. I placed her with a young family who had a farm and she lived out the rest of her life as a very happy farm dog not even taking very long to adapt so you have to wonder.


I tried at the time to get my club involved in setting up some kind of program to deal with rehoming but they weren’t interested. They just told me that the “good breeders” would take theirs back and anything else wasn’t their problem. Fortunately things have changed greatly since then and that club had an active “rescue” program the last time I checked.


I have stayed quietly involved with “rescue” from the sidelines ever since that first dog, mostly just holding a dog for a few days, transporting or picking up a dog for a rescue, passing on information, educating new owners, doing some home visits and evaluating dogs. Small things that I felt I could help with but not going full bore into “rescue”. I don’t go around bragging about what I do because I feel it is what I owe my breed, not something I accomplish.


I also don’t put down the owners of dogs coming into rescue FOR ANY REASON. First of all, I don’t know the whole story of that person’s life. I only see part of it. There are a lot of reasons in this world that someone’s life changes and frequently giving up a dog is a part of it. It may be a very difficult part but still necessary, and sometimes it is the best thing for the dog as well as the owner.


I had to give up my dogs when my husband got sued years ago. I had no choice. It was feed my kids or feed the dogs. It was rough, especially when my son had to give up his golden because we were moving into an apartment that wouldn’t take a large dog. The apartment was all we could afford at the time. I was lucky enough to have the resources to place my dogs myself. Not many people do. The golden went to my boss and a year later saved his 5 year old daughter’s life. Needless to say, that dog had a good life with that family. I cried a few tears and thanked God that the dog was in the right place.


To me that is what “rehoming” is about – the right place for the dog. Not “glory” for me as a hero for “rescue”, not shame for someone who gives up or loses their dog for whatever reason. It’s about God given compassion for the dog and God given charity for the owners. Because every time I see some story about dogs taken from an “abuser” or a “hoarder” I know that with the political climate what it is today thanks to the animal “rights” extremists – there but for the Grace of God, go I. There are too many whackos out there that believe that keeping dogs as DOGS is abuse and that no human is good enough to own a dog. And there are too many “rescuers” who feed into that mind set with their screaming pleas for help and money for the dogs that have been “rescued” from some abuser or hoarder.


I am always happy to do what is right for my breed and help in any way I can with the placement of a dog but I won’t do it at the expense of a human being. And when a “rescue” starts squealing about “hoarders” and “abusers”, I simply step away. It’s not necessary to denigrate another human being in order to help a dog. Just do what is right for the dog and let God take care of the rest.






Elizabeth Brinkley, MFA in Theatre,
Legislative Liaison TRSSCGP
Dante Kennels, est. 1974, Latrobe, PA
AKC Breeder of Merit
http://www.dantekennels.com/
Member - ASSA, TRSSCGP, WCOTC, OHA


"When injustice becomes law, Resistance becomes duty." T. Jefferson

"One of the greatest delusions of the world is the HOPE that the EVILS of this world are to be CURED BY LEGISLATION. " Thomas B. Reed 1886

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.

Why Animals Don't Have Rights

The phrase "animal rights" sounds pleasant enough on the surface. Kind-hearted people the world over love animals and wish to see them treated humanely. Abuse and neglect of owned animals is illegal in every state of the union. We as a society value and promote the welfare of animals.

However, upon close examination, we find that the concept of "animal rights" is invalid.

"Rights" is defined as "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral".

What specific "rights" are animals entitled to claim, under a system of justice? This must be determined in order to discuss the situation intelligently.

Here is a listing of some commonly-accepted "rights":

·        right to life

·        right to liberty (freedom from slavery or serfdom)

·        right to own personal property

·        right to equality of justice

·        right to vote

·        right to free speech

·        Freedom of religion

·        Freedom from torture

We can't reasonably expect for animals to participate in free speech, or in a political system whereby they vote, or in the selection of a religion.

Rights are civil and political concepts. In order for animals to have rights, they must have an established system of government. They must have laws for which there is punishment for infractions, determined by a system of justice.

Animals don't have laws. The concept of justice does not exist for them. They don't live by a moral code.

In order for rights to exist, corresponding responsibilities must also exist. For instance, if one expects the right to vote, then one must abide by societal rules and laws that have been instituted in order to maintain that right. The right to liberty must be balanced with a respect for the rights of others. Animals do not have a respect for the rights of others, and therefore the liberty of wild animals is balanced only by the forces of nature such as predation and the food chain. Animals may have a concept of possession of property, but no reciprocal idea of theft being "wrong".

There are also social rights concepts such as sexual equality, racial equality, rights to education and to health care. These rights are agreed upon by the members of society as beneficial and just for the group. Animals have no understanding of or participation in abstract concepts like equal rights based on gender, race or age.

The concept of "animal rights" ignores the very nature of animals. Animals fight for territory or partners. They hunt, kill and eat each other. They rape, pillage and plunder at will. Humans have established official codes of conduct that prohibit such activities impinging on the "rights" of others. While the very nature of "humane" treatment prohibits any human-caused torture of animals, there is no such natural prohibition against torture in the animal world. 

Animals are incapable of moralizing; and even if capable, should the lion be told that he may not eat the lamb? Should the very process of natural selection and evolution be altered in consideration of the "right" of prey to avoid being someone's dinner? Of course not. 

Most people do, however, believe in the concept of humane stewardship toward animals. The very use of the word "humane" tells us that compassionate treatment of animals and each other is an ideal inherently related to human values, ethics and morals.

 We believe that the animals we own should be treated with compassion and mercy. We believe that animals in the wild should be conserved from the effects of mankind that might serve to decimate their populations. This ideal of stewardship of animals (or animal welfare) is vastly different from the concept of animals having "rights".

Animal rights activists have waged a campaign to convince the public that animals ownership is akin to slavery; that breeding is no different than rape; that animals on farms are the moral equivalent of Nazi holocaust victims. Such comparisons are deeply offensive to anyone who cherishes genuinely "humane" ethics and values.

 

The idea that animals must be "free" from human use ignores our human biology. We are not herbivores, with multiple stomachs and lengthy intestines, who ruminate a grassy diet; we are omnivores who rely on some meat and animal products in our diet to maintain our health. We have evolved in this manner. We co-evolved with dogs, who hunted alongside us and helped us to herd our flocks, so that both our species could enjoy our natural diets. 

Those who believe that the concept of "Animal Rights" is worthy of support may obtain self-satisfaction derived from a sense of moral superiority, but their logic and intelligence is certainly questionable.

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.