There ya go again!

New rules and regulations are being proposed by the LA DACC. These would impose further burdensome restrictions on kennels, pet stores and animal facilities.

 Our legislators are being advised by AR people, who do not have experience with animal care and their suggested changes are not in the best interests of animals or their owners. One thing is clear about these changes. They resemble almost all of the dog law changes sweeping the country. They are composed almost entirely of vague language that can be used selectively to persecute on a whim. Here are a FEW thoughts on some of the language of the proposed ordinance.

 "Housing will be sound and in good repair". What is "good repair"? Fresh paint? Screens on windows? Does flooring matter?

"All animals shall be supplied with good and wholesome food and potable water that is free from debris and is readily accessible and available as often as the feeding habits of the respective animals require" OK who decides what is wholesome food? Raw or kibble? Human grade? Water might get an occasional pet hair in it, can't watch it every second.

 "Animals shall be groomed and kept in a manner that is not injurious to their health" Such as? Are we talking mat-free, or show ring-ready grooming?? Will a flea mean your license gets revoked? Again, who decides?


"Animals shall not be neglected, teased, abused, mistreated, annoyed, tormented or in any manner made to suffer by any person or means" Any person? How about Cesar Milan? Gee, my dog gets annoyed when I ask him to do something he prefers not to do...is that illegal now, to tell your pet to sit, or stay, or behave??


"Tethering of animals is prohibited." Self explanatory, although intrusive nonetheless. Tethering is often a safe effective means of confinement. Can groomers use a grooming arm? Dunno. Can you tie a dog temporarily to attend to another one? Guess it depends on who is watching.


"...shall isolate sick animals sufficiently so as not to endanger the health of other animals." Isolate where? Another room? Another property?


"An animal shall be taken to a veterinarian for examination or treatment if the director finds it necessary to maintain the health of the animal..." Could this be for any ailment that is easily treated, like cuts/scrapes? How about teeth that need to be cleaned or brushed? I'd hate to think that you can be considered criminally negligent if your dog is overdue for a tooth scaling.


"All enclosures....shall be of sufficient size to provide adequate and proper accomodations....large enough....and have a SOLID floor surface, not metal strand or wire flooring" Guess animals will invariably have to muck about in their own excrement?


"The enclosure shall not be placed on top of another animal enclosure." So, no more rows of stacked cages at PetSmart??? These are always rescue animals too, so I guess they will have to bring half as many pets on those adoption days. Hmmm...no stacked crates, anywhere? Are dog shows next on the stacked crate hit list?


"Animals which are natural enemies, temperamentally unsuited, or otherwise incompatible, shall not be quartered together or so near each other as to cause injury, fear or torment." OK, how close is that? No cats next to dogs? No dogs nearby to rabbits? Who is going to decide which is compatible and how far apart they need to be kept?


"Any tack, equipment, device, substance or material that is, or COULD BE, injurious or cause unnecessary cruelty to any animal shall not be used." Such as what?? A broomstick or a hose could be injurious, but might be needed in the course of the day to clean up. What exactly are they talking about here? Again, up to the interpretation of the local AC imperial majesty?


"Working animals shall be given adequate rest periods." Like what, 10 minutes per hour? Will they need to punch out on the time clock? And what work are animals doing in Los Angeles anyway? Herding cattle? Do they need time out from their back yard guard duties? Who is going to monitor this stuff?? It BOGGLES the mind!


"Each dog and cat....shall be provided with minimum exercise period of at least one hour of exercise each day." Again, with the timer. You only have 24 hours in a day....how on earth would a pet shop comply with this? And, if your old dog has arthritis you've gotta drag them around and make sure they exercise?


"All other animals shall be given adequate exercise proper for the individual animal under the particular conditions." HUH? Exactly what is meant here? Who will decide how much exercise my bird or my snake needs and how he'll get it?


"Animals bearing evidence of malnutrition, ill health, unhealed injury.....shall not be displayed." OK what will we do with the rescues? Keep them in a back room until their scars disappear? Which in many cases is...NEVER!


"Any animal whose appearance is or may be offensive or contrary to public decency shall not be displayed." Again, what does this mean? We have to concern ourselves with appearance of a dog or cat being offensive? Maybe a hairless breed is offensive? Maybe someone else doesn't like to see cropped ears? What matters something as superficial as physical appearance?


And here's the final kicker...."may not posses....more than a combined total of fifty dogs or cats..."

Back to that AR dream of limiting possession based on numbers criteria. So, if you want to handle enough animals to actually stay in business, no way, that is now proposed to be outlawed. Boarding kennels will certainly need to raise prices or go out of business altogether. Of course, the number "50" is arbitrary, and will certainly be racheted down in the future.


There are new rules about posting your whereabouts on the door....or the number for the AC dept...when you are not on the premises of your business. A good way to "get" somebody and pull their license when they get turned in by some nut job with a chip on his shoulder.


There are also extensive record keeping requirements that are quite burdensome. Every pet must be microchipped and tracked from birth to death.


These proposed changes were based almost solely on beliefs held by AR people and those not experienced in caring for dogs. They are all " one size fits all" and do not take into consideration the different care requirements needed for each individual breed. Some of them, like the rules for "Retired Females" would have had exactly the OPPOSITE outcome of what they claimed they were trying to prevent. Thankfully that cruel requirement, where only three retired females could be kept at one time, has been resolved. They will stay under the umbrella of the kennel license.


If you care about your rights to keep animals, you simply must start making contact with your local government representatives and start educating them. The AR people are filling their heads with their beliefs. It's not just about educating puppy buyers etc, it is about educating the Government. What they should know and what they DO know are two wildly different things. You have to consider that when only one side of the story is told, that becomes the full story. Start talking to the people who represent you. Attend the hearings!

The proposed changes can be found at http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/cms1_142916.pdf


The current regulations (Title 10) can be found at: http://search.municode.com/html/16274/index.htm

Click here to see full PIJAC PetAlert
http://www.pijac.org/_documents/ca_la_county_title_10.pdf

The Los Angeles Department or Animal Care and Control will hold two public meetings. If you are affected by this proposal you need to attend one or both of the meetings and submit written comments to the Department.


• Also contact your elected County officials


• The two meetings will be held on March 9 and 10:


o Child Support Services


Phillip Browning Room


5500 S. Eastern Avenue, 1st Floor


Commerce, CA 90040


March 9, 2010 -- 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.



o City Council Chambers


38300 Sierra Highway


Palmdale, CA 93550


March 10, 2010 -- 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.



• If you are unable to attend either of the meetings, you may send written comments/questions related to the proposed ordinance changes to:

ACCLegal@animalcare.lacounty.gov

• If you have animals in your facility and the proposed regulations are adopted without any changes, be prepared to go out of business or move to another county!!

Mandatory Sterilization; Bad Idea

The idea of mandatory spay and neuter of pets is rearing its ugly head all across the nation, but has gone particularly viral in California. Consider the following pertinent facts:


Coercive and punitive legislation is unnecessary. Shelter intake and euthanasia numbers have dramatically and steadily declined since the 1970s. This in the face of a burgeoning human population during this same time period.

According to shelter expert Nathan Winograd, there are over five times more homes opening up for pets every year in the US, than there are pets euthanized in shelters.

Forced sterilization, steep license fees and harsh fines disproportionately punish seniors and low income families.


Mandatory sterilization results in increased shelter intakes and deaths anywhere it has been tried. Always! The City of Los Angeles has seen a sharp rise in intakes that coincides with the passage of their mandatory sterilization bill a little over a year ago.


Mandatory sterilization is costly to enforce.

Millions of dollars of revenue to communities hosting dog shows will vanish. AKC will rightly assume that their intact dogs are not welcome in these areas and move their dog shows to more breeder-friendly locations.

Compliance will be low, and revenues will drop, as owners will increasingly seek to avoid steep fees and costly, unnecessary surgery on their pets. Veterinarians are increasing the price tags for neutering.....with the clients at their mercy, by government mandate!

The vast majority of owned pets (70% of dogs and 84% of cats) are already sterilized.

Feral cats comprise the majority of shelter intakes, and sterilization mandates do nothing to reduce the numbers of feral cats. Instead, "TNR" (trap-neuter-release) has proven the only humane and effective  solution to controlling feral cat populations. 


Compulsory sterilization laws have resulted in increased incidence of RABIES, as owners who avoid licensing may also fail to vaccinate for rabies. This creates a dire risk to human health. Fort Worth TX abandoned their mandated sterilization bill after they experiences an unprecedented increase in rabies cases.

We have effectively reached a nationwide "no kill" level that averages 1.25% pet per population. We have shortages of adoptable pets in all the New England states, the bay area of California and the San Diego area.

Forced sterilization increases the black market for dogs and puppies. Dogs are being smuggled in by the thousands now from Mexico. Rescue groups are even importing from other countries....(Mexico, Brazil, the Caribbean, Taiwan and Romania to name some of the most popular spots to import from). The conservative estimate is 300,000 dogs imported each year. All this to meet the demand for pets.

Behavioral studies show that neutering increases fearfulness, noise phobias and aggression.


Other studies prove significant health risks associated with early neutering. The most problematic is a delayed closure of the growth plates, resulting in abnormal, "weedy" skeletal development that predisposed the dog to orthopedic problems. Working dogs, if neutered too young, can not develop normally to perform the jobs they were bred for.


Other well-documented adverse health effects of early neutering include increased risk of bone cancer, hemangiosarcoma, urinary incontinence, hypothyroidism, and cognitive dysfunction in older dogs. Dogs neutered at an early age have an increased susceptibility to infectious disease, and also a higher incidence of adverse reactions to vaccines.


The latest studies show that ovaries are linked to longevity. Spayed bitches don't get to keep their ovaries.

Bottom line, the decision to neuter a pet is an individual one, and should be made only by an owner in consultation with his veterinarian. The state does not have the moral authority to usurp this right.

The ASPCA and the American Veterinary Medical Association are OPPOSED to mandatory sterilization because they know that this policy creates more problems than it solves.

"In contrast, the ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law."

Some successful solutions to shelter problems include TNR of feral cats, lifting limit laws, and providing low-cost sterilization clinics for those who elect to neuter their pets. Other effective methods include extending shelter hours, working proactively with local rescues and outreaching to place pets through various community outlets.

Just say NO to government-mandated sterilization!

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/may09/090515j.asp

http://petpac.net/news/headlines/importedpuppies/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-30-dogs-usat_x.htm

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar10/100301g.asp

http://saveourdogs.net/2009/04/01/mandatory-spayneuter-laws%E2%80%94a-failure-everywhere/
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/

http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html
http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/mandatory-spay-neuter-laws.html

What Is the Status of Dogs and Cats in the US?

Nationwide Dog Ownership 39%

Cat Ownership 34%

Dogs Spayed/Neutered 70%

Cats Spayed/Neutered 84%

Intake Per Thousand 23.3 (2.33%)

Euthanasia Per Thousand 12.5 (1.25%)

Source: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, LA/MS Shelter statistics, ownership and altering statistics citations and documentation available at:
http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/messaging-spay-neuter-report-_-final.pdf  (pg 11)

The National Socialist Movement of the 21st Century

PETA is fond of drawing parallels to Nazism as a means to rouse such strong emotional responses that people will fail to actually consider the parallel.


The current Animal Rights (AR) situation has some striking similarities to the Nazi party activities of Germany in the 1930s. Except that the ARs tend to get it backwards. The idea of breeding towards healthful excellence is not what made Nazism so problematic-it was, among other things, the idea that a few people should be able to force their view onto everyone else.



Animal owners should all be registered and carry papers.

Anyone who disagrees with AR party should be raided and have their property seized.

Terrorizing and attacking people is an effective tool for change.

There is only one acceptable world view, and anyone who disagrees with their truth should be silenced.

Linguistic slurs are effective tools for lumping people together and obscuring truth.

The AR goal is so important that they can lie, terrorize, steal, mislead, and hurt other people or animals.

Power is more important than truth or justice.

Zealotry is more important than reason.

Special "humane police" go door to door looking for people to persecute.

They can arbitrarily decide what rights other people or animals have.

It is acceptable to recruit members by lying or coercing.

A single charismatic and passionate person can take a reasonable position and twist it into insanity, and can convince a great many people to follow them by focusing attention on the compelling kernel of truth. No rational person could have seen exterminating Jews as advancing German policy, just as no rational person could see exterminating all captive animals as advancing animal welfare. Hitler woke early each morning to kill Jews just as Ingrid rose early each morning to kill animals.

In America today we have innocent people living in fear-terrified that the special police will show up at their house, plant evidence, and destroy their lives. Afraid that some neighbor will turn them in to the authorities. I remember as a young student hardly believing that millions failed to recognize and avert Hitler's madness. In the past decade that disbelief has vanished, replaced by a profound sadness, as I watch millions of people donate their money to HSUS and PETA to be used to cause immeasurable harm and suffering to animals and people alike.

(Abridged post from the Pet Law Yahoo list, by "Roland and Lauren")

Los Angeles... meter readers gonna GETCHA!

The Los Angeles City Council voted (13-0) this week to require the Department of Water and Power to turn over their database to Animal Services about animals noted on private property. Tony Cardenas also asked that the actual number of dogs or horses be included. If you have more than 3 dogs and/or cats, you will be cited for having an unlicensed kennel and forced to get rid of some animals. One councilman wants to pursue cat licensing also.

If notified by DWP that there are dogs or cats or horses on your premises, they will send out a letter to your house and if there is no response someone from Los Angeles Animal Services will be sent out to your property to harrass you.

Their objective? To raise $3-4 million in revenues to help ease the City's budget crisis.

That's corrrect....The money won't go to buy food for homeless dogs in shelters. It won't go to provide low-cost medical care for pets belonging to seniors and the poor. Nor will it go towards laying in a new supply of dog catcher's snares. The cash from dog fees and fines will dump into the trough to feed the city pork.

They plan to raise money from our pets to spend on OTHER city projects, admininstration, salaries etc. More pencil pushers to dream up more ways to harrass the average citizen.

No big deal, just a tiny little license fee, right? WRONG!

Recently, the city of Los Angeles enacted a mandatory sterilization law. (Unfortunately it applies to pets, not the city council members). One who applies for a license and expects to keep his pet intact must request a special permit, delineating his reasons, and proving that he deserves to exercise his right to make his own decisions. There's no guarantee an exemption will be granted, and it can be revoked at any  time. The license fee for an intact dog is $100 PER YEAR. Also, you must pay the breeder's permit fee....even if you have no plans to breed the dog. This fee is $225. Per dog, Per year!

Since when is government justified to penalize for actions that haven't been taken yet? How fundamentally wrong is that?

The concept of dog licensing was originally implemented as a way to track rabies vaccination compliance... PERIOD! Licensing was instituted in the name of public health. But let the camel stick its nose under the tent, and now Big Government thinks they have the right to dictate all terms and conditions of animal ownership.

Saddest of all, when owners are faced with unreasonable, punitive fees and fines, many more animals will ultimately end up at the city shelters. With the current deep recession, people are lucky to be able to afford food, much less pay steep fees and/or huge veterinary bills for unnecessary speuter surgery. Now, some must choose between food and keeping their pets.


And get this....it’s all based on meter readers’ notes and opinions here and there, no official survey, nothing like that. Kinda like hearsay or listening to gossip. So a meter reader hears a dog bark, could be a different house, a visiting dog, a stray, or a tape recording for that matter! Maybe there is a cat sitting on your porch. Then AC gets a whiff of potential license revenues, and demands money from the home owner. If you do indeed own an unlicensed pet, next you are forced to pay fines and have your animal submit to costly and unnecessary surgery, against your wishes....or you must relinquish your pet.

What happened to liberty, due process and....Christ almighty, what happened to PRIVACY! Meter readers peering over your fence to conduct a dog license "sting"?

Oh, why do I even ask? This is animal control and government. ‘Nuff said.

Wouldn't society be better served if the meter readers reported meth labs and gang activity?

No money in that, though.

Dial "M" For Murder

Dial M for Murder....a 1954 Hitchcock thriller. Intrigue and deception abound as a man connives and conspires to murder his unfaithful wife.


But that's not like real life, is it? Chilling, callous behavior is the exception, not the rule.

Isn't it?
For sure, this sort of activity would not be common in the dog world. Politics exists; but heck, no actual physical harm is done as the crawdads climb over each other to reach the top of the bucket.

Right?
Well ordinarily I could give a rat's patoot about who reaches the top of the dog show heap. But when show success becomes a justification for promoting a downright dangerous gene, it's time to speak up.

I have heard it said on several chat lists lately, that it would surely be a shame if the breeders who show merle Chihuahuas and merle Pomeranians were eliminated from the ring. They have done so much work to bring the qualities of the merle in these breeds to perfection.

 HUH? I thought the idea was to select for the better DOGS, not to reward the breeders and handlers based upon the degree of hard work.

Hmmm. Well, ask any poodle or bichon person; a striking appearance and artful grooming can take you a long way. So perhaps it IS mostly about rewarding people for their hard work.

But, if we believe it is truly about the dogs, and selecting breeding stock, how is this a progress toward perfection? A gene that reliably produces some serious birth defects is the polar opposite of "perfection".


In 1968, UK Chihuahua breeder-judge Hilary Harmer wrote the book "Dogs and how to Breed Them", wherein she noted:

"The merle colouring is interesting, because it is connected with a semi-lethal gene, and, when it occurs in a double dose, the offspring may be blind, deaf or sterile. For obvious reasons, therefore, two merle dogs should on no account ever be mated together. In fact, it would be better for merle to be a disqualified colour in all breeds."

Problem is, many people are blissfully unaware of the potential dire consequences of working with this cruel factor. Add it to other genes for white coat, and the odds for defects just multiplied. Add it to the gene pool of breeds that allow all colors, and it can lie undetected under a light-colored coat, just waiting to pair up with a partner to produce it's crippling effects.

And once the pattern becomes acceptable in a breed, there will be people who INTENTIONALLY try to produce double merles...because the double merle parent will produce 100% merle puppies.
Even among the more ethical breeders, an accidental breeding between two merles is not unheard of. Stranger things have happened, and the results can be shockingly horrific. Ask any Aussie, Sheltie or Collie person who would honestly admit it. However, that might be a bit tricky, because speaking honestly regarding this topic is not politically correct. The proof is in the many blind and deaf dogs of these breeds who are sent to rescues.

OK, we have to admit that merle is NOT simply a benign, pretty factor. So, how are breeders justifying the recent infiltration of some genepools with this dangerous bit of wayward DNA?

First off, the fans of this popular color pattern join the "Cleopatra" club... as in "Queens of de Nile".

"We have plenty of health problems in our breed, why be concerned about a color?"

     "Merle is perfectly harmless, and very attractive."

"Deafness? That's not a painful affliction."

"Eye defects, even missing eyeballs? A bit more serious, perhaps."

"No problems occur unless you breed merle-to-merle and just HAPPEN to double up on the merle gene."

"Hey, not ALL double merles have problems."

"Those problems happen with other colors, too....health problems come in all colors!"

"Why punish the breeders who breed merle responsibly?"

"Too late to lock the barn door now, it's already been opened."

"Lethal whites? If most don't survive to birth, then we don't have to worry about them."

And of course there's that ultimate dog show person's rationalization:

"All colors are allowed in our standard! Any questions?"

Once the rationalization phase is complete, on to stage two, manipulating members of the breed club. Let's see, how can we block any standard revision that intends to close our loophole allowing for merle?

• 
  
  Launch an aggressive PR media blitz featuring merle puppies in magazines articles and ads
• 
  
  Organize a well-planned election campaign to install sympathizers into the breed club board of directors
• 
  
  Call club members to inflame with red herring alarmism: "Your favorite color may be next on the chopping block!"
• 
  
  Get a member of the AKC board of directors to send out letters written on AKC letterhead, urging the breed club members to reject any merle penalty in their standard revision vote. (And the guy doesn't even belong to your club or own a single dog of your breed!)
• 
  
  Strongarm the parent club to include references to merles on their website. Judges are then referred to the parent club website if they have any qualms about putting up merles!

Of course it would be an insult to the new merle champions, and so unfair to their owners, to penalize the pattern now! Particularly after we've had our professional handlers remind every licensed AKC judge that ALL COLORS are permissible! Why that would be absolutely criminal, to deny someone their hard-earned opportunity to capitalize on this exotic color!

Connive, contrive, convince and conquer!

It's been working oh so well, so far. Merle is at an all-time popular high...so much so that you can now also find merle Jack Russell terriers, merle Cocker Spaniels, merle Poodles, merle Schnauzers, merle Rat Terriers, merle Miniature Pinschers. Why malign a simple color pattern that is so widely sought after??

And, as long as breeders succeed in that ultimate measure of "quality" and success, the dog show competition, end of discussion! No concern about the future of the breed or your role in promoting a blatant health hazard.

As Hitchcock would advise,

"When murder calls, hang up!"

Black and White

Remember these whisky ads from 50-plus years ago? They graced the pages of most major magazines.

Black and white.
Salt and pepper.
Yin and Yang.


There's a natural partnership noted here, and it's not a coincidence. Not too long before the 1890s when this "Black and White" advertising campaign was initiated, these two now-distinct "breeds" were considered varieties of the SAME breed of dog. Black, white and sometimes wheaten and even brindle-colored terriers often appeared in the same litter. 

Folks who lived in the wilds of Scotland needed hardy dogs capable of digging rabbits, rats and foxes out of burrows among the craggy rockpiles (known as "cairns") and under thorn bushes; places where bigger dogs would be unable to go. The small terriers were the result of this need. The word terrier comes from the Latin "terra" or earth. Terriers will dig furiously into burrows in search of their quarry. Sometimes they dig in so deeply that the hunter might have to pull them out by their stocky tail. Their harsh, shaggy coats keep them warm in the snowy winters and protect their skin from brambles. The eyebrows help to keep the soil out of the eyes when digging.

In the 1800's,the terriers of Scotland were a diverse lot of similar type. The dogs were long and low, rough-coated, and well suited to rout out foxes, badgers and martens from their dens. 

Scottish Terriers as a group were referred to as Skye terriers, or Diehard Terriers, or Aberdeen Terriers. However, when dog shows came into vogue in the late 1800's, standards were drawn up and interbreeding between various subtypes of Scottish terriers was subsequently forbidden. "Fancy points" such as head type were selected for and little attention was paid to how well the dog controlled vermin.

The Scottish dog breeds that descended from the Aberdeen or Skye terrier of yesteryear are the modern Skye terrier, the Cairn Terrier, the West Highland White Terrier and the Scottish Terrier. These breeds have only formed over the past one hundred fifty or so years years as distinct breeds.

The Dandie Dinmont was another type of terrier known in Scotland, and likely shares some common ancestry with the other Scottish terrier breeds. Check the resemblance in this depiction of Guy Mannering in 1814; "Dandy Dinmont" with his terriers:

Any crossbreeding between these similar terrier varieties is strictly forbidden by the registering Kennel Clubs. According to Scottish Terrier historian Cindy Cooke, all today's Scottish Terriers descend from ONE common female ancestor. In the early 20th century, the gene pool was narrowed further down to just a handful of popular dogs. 

And therein lies a very serious problem. The result of generations of inbreeding is a physical depression, characterized by shortened lifespan, decreased vigor and fertility, and increased susceptibility to autoimmune disease, infectious disease and cancer. There is also a propensity for recessive health problems to become entrenched in a breed through inbreeding, and the proscription against outcrossing to other groups of terriers assures that defects will continue to affect a large percentage of a breed's population.

But don't take my word for it: more in depth information is posted on the "Great Scots" blogpage:

http://tartanscottie.com/macblog/?p=58

Dog breeding is not a black and white activity. We should stop occasionally and ponder the nuances of those shades of grey.

More on history of the Scottish terrier breeds:
http://stcinc.org/learn.htm

Early terriers.

Terriers in the 1940's. Distinct yet remain very similar in physical appearance.

The BS behind "Designer Dogs"

I ran across this ad this morning:

http://sfgate.kaango.com/feViewAd/16213571

If you can’t access the link, it’s an ad for Labradoodle puppies, selling for 2700.00 each.

Twenty seven hundred dollars!! That’s more than twice the average price of a genuine purebred dog, which, by definition, is “bred from members of a recognized breed, strain, or kind without outbreeding over many generations,” often hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of years. Also known as pedigreed, meaning it has a written, traceable, record of the lineage that proves its purebred status.

A Labradoodle, on the other hand, is NOT a purebred. Originally a mix of Poodle and Labrador, its initial claim to fame, that it was hypoallergenic, got great attention and a lot of folks, seeing a way to make a quick buck, jumped on the bandwagon, paired up random Poodles and Labs and sold their offspring as Labradoodles. This led to a rash of so-called “designer dogs,” an endless list of mixes with cute names such as Goldendoodles, Cockapoos, Pomapoos, Bascotties, Buggles, Malorkies, Pithuahuas, Pointsetters, Schnairedales, or the ever popular Jack Russell/Shih Tzu mix, aka the JackShiht. OK, that last one isn’t real (as far as I know), but shows how ridiculous this has become, because, again by definition, each of these dogs is an “animal of mixed breed,” or uncertain ancestry, also known as a crossbreed, half-blood, hybrid, mutt, or, the type of dog most often found in animal shelters. Did I mention those Labradoodles are going for 2700.00?

I could say it was an example of the gullibility of the American public, but it’s more than that. Over the past few years, the animal rights crusaders have done a fabulous job of downgrading purebred dogs and glorifying mutts, to the extent that adopting a shelter dog has become the only acceptable way to acquire a pet. On the other hand, people who are lured by the prestige of owning a special breed of dog, something that makes them the Paris Hilton of their community, will fall for the hype of a Labradoodle or any other cross bred “designer dog.” It doesn’t have the sour taste of being purebred, but it has the cachet of being something special, which makes them easy targets for the shysters out to make a buck (a LOTTA bucks!) off them.

What’s really sad is that by investing in “designer dogs,” these people are shelling out their hard earned cash for what they supposedly hate, backyard breeders and puppy mills, which are the main source of these animals. But what’s even worse is that even those who resist buying these mutts are still “drinking the kool-aid,” indoctrinated by the animal rights fanatics into donating millions of dollars to the Humane Society of the United States, the driving force behind the AR jihad, and thereby contributing to the fanatics who intend to remove ALL pets from our lives, no matter how we define them. Purebred, “designer” dogs, mutts, Heinz 57, every last one of them, gone forever. But that’s the subject of another blog.