Time 4 Dogs

Dogs Rule at Westminster

2012-02-11T20:34:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Rescued Weimaraner to show at Westminster":

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

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

Ranger's Proposal

2012-02-09T22:55:00.000-08:00

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.

Time 4 Prayer

2012-02-07T23:38:00.000-08:00

We could all do with a bit more prayer in our daily lives.....

Sleeping with the Enemy

2012-02-07T13:22:00.001-08:00

HSUS revealed in a press release yesterday that they have partnered up with some naive AKC breeders to form a Dog Breeder's Advisory and Resource Council. Hmm....the D-BARC. Rest assured, that name and its acronym are no coincidence! This is a blatant attempt to silence the voice of those who are independent thinkers. It's a typical divide-and-conquer ploy by experts in that tactic.

"The new partnership will help consumers shop wisely for a puppy by recognizing the difference between responsible breeders and puppy mills." the announcement states. "...composed of responsible dog breeders from across the country. Council members will advise HSUS on dog health and welfare issues, and talk to the general public about what constitutes proper breeding practices, promoting the health of the parents and the puppies."

Proper breeding practices according to WHO? While certain "hobby breeders" may believe that championships and adherence to a breed standard are the most important criteria for success and prerequisites for breeding, others may have different priorities. They may wish to produce nice companions, good workers, or perhaps just would like to experience the joy of raising a litter of puppies. Nothing wrong with that!

Next we hear from one of the actual participants in the program:

"We want to protect our right to be responsible breeders and to enjoy and bond with our dogs in show and performance events, but if we think for one minute that ignoring the problem of cruelty to animals makes us responsible breeders and protects our rights, I believe we're wrong," says Council member and AKC Breeder of Merit, Kathryn McGriff. "We can no longer sweep puppy mills under the rug."

Apparently, this gal believes that breeding dogs=cruelty="puppy mill". Unless done her way. After all, she is lauded as an AKC "Breeder of Merit". A title signifying that the breeder registers all their dogs with AKC, and does some breed-specific health testing. This group of meritorious breeders is certainly not inherently more worthy than any other group of breeders.

McGriff breeds Clumber Spaniels, a breed so rare that it is threatened with extinction. But soon, if HSUS and these "responsible" breeders have their way, laws will be crafted to demand that all breeders fit a certain, limited mold. It will be their way, or the highway. HSUS will use this D-BARC panel to try to eliminate any breeders who are independent thinkers, or who dare to wish to make a profit.

And where does McGriff come up with the ridiculous notion that anyone is sweeping the issue of substandard breeders under the rug? Has she read the APHIS rules? The many "puppy mill" campaigns in the popular press?

There are umpteen rules and regulations, both federal and local, that delineate humane care and treatment of dogs. If people are not complying with rules for care of their dogs then they can be fined, or, in some extreme cases, even have their dogs "rescued" from the situation.

PLENTY of laws exist already on the books. Substandard breeders are exposed every day, and they either reform their practices or they are put out of business. The current system is working quite handily, and it is the finest system in existence. We certainly do not lack sufficient guidelines or laws when it comes to taking care of our animals. Heck, we have plenty of nosy bureaucrats interested in controlling our every step! And now, these few foolish Breeders of Merit are inviting yet more regulatory shackles upon all of us through participation in a program that seeks to "advise" the public on a narrow view of breeding practices. How dare they place all breeders in jeopardy!

"The primary aim of The HSUS is to promote pet adoption from shelters and rescue groups, and encourage consumers who choose to purchase a puppy to buy from a responsible breeder instead of inhumane, commercial breeding facilities known as puppy mills." the press release continues.

According to HSUS president, Wayne Pacelle, "We commend the responsible breeders who are showing leadership in their community and speaking out against the abusive operations that treat dogs not like loving family members, but like a cash crop."

Reality check for everyone.

DOGS ARE NOT PEOPLE. They are not equivalent to a family member, unless the owner CHOOSES to treat them as such. Many dogs are bred for work, for hunting, for protection, for guides to the blind and other service. While many dogs are also bred as companions, every one of the aforementioned purposes is just fine too.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with breeding dogs as a business. Gosh, how I wish I could make a living doing what I love, being around my dogs 24/7. But alas, that is not possible for those who breed only on a small scale. And now those who breed as a business are under direct attack from all fronts.

The HSUS puts the emphasis on "adoption" from shelters and "rescue" groups. Never mind the fact that shelters and rescues often import dogs from other areas and even other countries because they don't have enough dogs available for sale.

Today I also received word about another show breeder who has fallen under the spell of the HSUS. Just read her note from a message board on the HSUS's website!

Aloha, my name is Theresa Donnelly, and I am the secretary of Boxer Club of Hawaii. Thank you so much for taking this on and questioning the AKC. I am involved with helping pass some animal protection bills here in Hawaii, and I have really enjoyed working with HSUS. I have been hoping that the AKC could partner with HSUS for some time. The fact that health is not a standard that is judged against in confirmation shows is wrong. As a hobby breeder, I feel health and temperament should come before appearance. I can only hope that the AKC will stop opposing bills like our commercial breed bill here. It is too bad too, because AKC has a lot of great programs and it hurts both sides when we don't work together. I thank you for standing up for what is right and confronting them for their breeding standards. We can only hope that as time goes by, more ethical breeders will join the fight. Theresa

What can we reasonably expect from a ditzy chick who can't even spell "conformation"? And who thinks you can judge health in a show ring? Absolutely moronic. Where has she been all these many months that breeders have been under attack? She must be quite insulated from reality there in the Hawaiian islands. If there are more like her, no wonder we read this week that the State of Hawaii is now proposing a law requiring every dog sold be sterilized.* That has HSUS written all over it. Pet extinction in paradise.

Are these few sanctimonious and pious show breeders partnering up with HSUS in a pathetic attempt to eliminate the competition? Or are they really that clueless about the HSUS?

Sadly, some AKC "Breeders of Merit" have joined the circular firing squad. There is nothing meritorious about attempting to eliminate the rights of others to participate in breeding programs that comply with government regulations for humane care and treatment.

More info on Hawaii's SB2504:
*http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2012/bills/SB2504_.HTM

Theresa Donnelly, Boxer Club secretary, at a pet store protest in Hawaii on Jan 28, 2012. Wake up and smell the coffee, Toots!

PUPS - "What Can We Do"?

2012-01-29T00:33:00.001-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Institutionalized Cruelty - the AlphaTex case

2012-01-23T18:00:00.001-08:00

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.

Your Right to Own a Pet

2012-01-19T00:07:00.000-08:00

There exist umpteen internet websites expounding on the responsibilites of pet ownership. And many of them loudly proclaim that "pet ownership is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT."

Standing at the helm of this "Pets are a Privilege" movement, we find the American Veterinary Medical Association. The AVMA Executive Board recently approved new guidelines for responsible pet ownership. The guidelines are prefaced with this statement:

"Owning a pet is a privilege and should result in a mutually beneficial relationship." (1)

The devil, you say. Really? A privilege?

A "privilege" is defined as a "right or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most; the condition of enjoying special rights." A privilege is a special right granted by those in authority; something for which you must obtain permission. A right is something for which you do not need permission.

Pets are property, in both a technical and a legal sense. (More about that in a future post). Our right to own a pet is the same as the right to own any other property and must not be considered a privilege; something by definition "beyond the advantage of most."

The UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" states:

"Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

Six of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution refer directly or indirectly to personal property rights. (2)

Owning an animal is a right, as is ownership of any other property. It's not a privilege.

To further bolster the case for the pet ownership, consider the vital role pets play in out lives. Let's look to current research studies. Pet ownership provides health benefits such as reducing anxiety, lowering blood pressure, and reducing allergies. Pets provide companionship, promote exercise and improve our social skills by helping to reduce shyness and isolation. (3)

We have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", so said the founders of our nation in the Declaration of Independence. Pet ownership definitely falls under the category of pursuit of happiness. Not to mention, it's good for our health.

Considering the postive health benefits of pet ownership, that right should not be abridged. If pet ownership becomes a "privilege" there would then exist an unreasonable usurpation of our rights. We have a right to pursue our dreams, and a right to pet ownership.

We have the right to purchase and own property. But just because we own something does not mean that we can do with it as we please. Sometimes there are restrictions placed upon the use of certain types of property, like a car, a gun, or an animal. You need to obtain a driver's license to use your car. You can own a gun, but cannot use it for illegal purposes. You can own an animal, but you must comply with animal welfare regulations.

Property ownership is a right, which may not be abridged unless we abuse that right. If ownership of pets is to be considered a privilege, then we must meet special conditions and requirements and may even be denied permission to make our purchase. However, constitutionally and legally, we do not need permission to purchase property.

Some breeders and pet rescuers firmly believe that the best interest of the pet supercedes the considerations of the owner.

"After working in rescue for many years" a friend recently confided "I sincerely believe that not everyone should own a dog."

And after working in a shelter for battered women, I suppose one might form the opinion that not everyone should get married. Not much of a revelation there. After working for child protective services, one might form the opinion that not everyone should have children. No epiphany there, either. After working in a hospital for many years, one might conclude that life is filled with doom, gloom and misery. But of course, such biased viewpoints are never accurate or balanced.

We cannot deny basic human rights based on the actions of those who abuse such rights.

True, some people don't give the proper consideration to dog ownership prior to making their decision. But probably, the majority of owners DO. And should the basic rights to ownership of animals for everyone be denied due to a few bad apples?

Owning an pet involves a good deal of responsibility. When you own an animal, you have a moral obligation to provide food shelter, care and kindness. We even have laws in all 50 states requiring humane treatment of animals; laws that forbid neglect and abuse.

The AVMA further delineates their proposed markers for "Responsible Pet Ownership" which includes such recommendations as keeping your pet for its entire lifetime, limiting breeding to help ease "overpopulation", and other debatable concepts. Of course, the AVMA recommends:

"Providing preventive (e.g., vaccinations, parasite control) and therapeutic health care for the life of pet(s) in consultation with, and as recommended by, its veterinarian."

Humans have the right to refuse to seek medical care if they so choose. I suppose if we exercise that option for our animals, then we are not "responsible". In the eyes of the AVMA, in this case, we don't deserve to have a pet!

Never mind the blatant conflict of interest in the recommendations by so many veterinarians for yearly vaccinations and monthly parasite managment treatments.

Another factor to consider when positing "responsible pet ownership guidelines" is that we may be projecting our own values about pet ownership onto others. We may forget that not all dogs are destined to function as pampered companions. Is it unreasonable to expect dogs to work as service animals for the disabled? What about keeping packs of dogs for hunting, or using dogs for herding, or having an outdoor guard dog?

Then there is the admonition for "socialization and appropriate training for pets." But what if the dog's purpose is to protect the owner? Perhaps the owner doesn't WANT their pet to be social and friendly to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Many breed standards call for an "aloof" quality. Again, the purpose for which some "pets" are kept can vary. That does not make the owner "irresponsible."

But put aside the AVMA's responsible pet owner commandments for a moment. Let's examine how responsible we as a nation have been in regard to pet ownership.

There are over 78 million owned dogs in the US, and over 86 million owned cats. There is also an unknown number of feral cats, and a minute number of unowned, stray dogs. Of the 156 million pets in the US, and the many millions more feral cats that exist, a small fraction of animals, estimated at 6-8 million, transit through shelters each year. Less than 4%. considering a significant number are feral ownerless cats, WAY below 4% of the owned animals in this country.

That means that over 96% of animals in this country are owned in a responsible manner.

Each year in the US, there are 17 million people who will adopt a new pet and haven't decided exactly where to get this new pet from. And there exists an estimated 2-3 million adoptable pets in shelters who are killed. There are 17 million households available to absorb 2-3 million shelter pets. To prevent their deaths, all that would be needed is to effectively use some creative marketing skills. Yet even if every adoptable animal was adopted, we would still need 14 million more pets each year.

Yes, Virginia, we CAN adopt our way out this problem. It has happened in many communities already; communities where the shelters are empty and need to import dogs from other area and even other countries. I'd say as a nation, we have proven our responsibility. We've heeded the call to adoption and emptied many shelters in the process. We are responsible enough to deserve to count pet ownership among our basic rights.

Yet our cultural zeitgeist remains one of sanctimony toward pet owners. We are regularly subjected to lectures about our "obligation" toward our pets as though we were a nation of reckless kindergartners.

Those 14 million households deserve their pets. Pet ownership - it's a right, not a privilege!

(1) http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/ownership_guidelines.asp

(2) http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/private-property-and-government-under-the-constitution/

(3) http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/health-benefits-of-pets

Censorship on Facebook

2012-01-11T18:37:00.000-08:00

After yesterday's post "Why Animals Don't Have Rights" was shared on Facebook, there was a block placed on any messages from the Time4Dogs blog being posted. When you try to use the share button, you will see this message:

Sorry, this post contains a blocked URL

The content you're trying to share includes a link that's been blocked for being spammy or unsafe:

2.bp.blogspot.com
For more information, visit the Help Center. If you think you're seeing this by mistake, please let us know.

I've certainly contacted Facebook to express my displeasure at their blatant censorship. Several times.

The simple truth is so threatening to certain animal extremist groups that they resort to desperate attempts to suppress that truth. Luckily, we still have freedom of speech in SOME internet venues. Just NOT Facebook.

Why Animals Don't Have Rights

2012-01-10T21:13:00.001-08:00

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.

Petition the White House to investigate the HSUS

2012-01-10T09:55:00.001-08:00

Please visit the official White House petition site and register, and SIGN this petition for the HSUS to be investigated for excessive lobbying.

Use this link:

http://tinyurl.com/7abq3r4

At the *very bottom* of the screen on the right-hand side, you'll see sign in/create account. Click.

If you haven't used We the People before, you will need to create an account. It will ask for your first and last name and your zip. Your last name will NOT be shown on the petition site.

Then you'll have to verify the little curly numbers in the box. If you can't read them, click on the arrow to get another challenge box (might be easier to read), or click on the little megaphone for an audio challenge. Type in what you see or hear.

Click on Register.

Wait a minute or two then check your email. You should receive a confirmation link from the petition site. Click the link. YOU ARE NOT DONE YET. You must click on "sign petition". You should get a little acknowledgement box once you have signed.

It takes a bit of effort but well worth it to help preserve our rights as dog owners. Don't give up!! And share the link and the instructions please!

Banning pet shop animal sales

2012-01-08T21:16:00.000-08:00

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

2012-01-08T13:11:00.001-08:00

"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!

Pups Act Gets Obama Support

2011-12-30T09:13:00.000-08:00

NEWS

PUPS ACT GETS OBAMA APPROVAL

The HSUS's petition for the PUPS act has met with a nod of approval from the OBAMA administration.

Humane Society Petition: http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2011/10/puppy_mills_petition_white_house_100311.html

The Response from the White House:

Improving Regulation and Oversight of Commercial Breeders

By Rebecca Blue, USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Thank you for signing a petition on the We the People platform asking the Obama Administration to "crack down on puppy mills."

The Obama Administration is committed to ensuring that USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which enforces the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), improves its regulation and oversight of commercial breeders. APHIS is currently developing proposed regulations that would ensure that Internet breeders provide their animals with care and treatment that meets the AWA standards. APHIS plans to publish its proposed rule covering Internet breeders in the Federal Register for public comment in 2012. We encourage interested citizens to provide their feedback on the rule at that time; comments can be logged at Regulations.gov.

APHIS is also moving forward with an enhanced AWA enforcement plan to improve its oversight of currently licensed dealers, breeders, and other entities regulated under the AWA (particularly those who are repeat violators). It is also working to improve the performance of its inspectors.

Additionally, in September 2011, USDA proposed a new rule that when finalized will help ensure that dogs imported into the United States for resale are in good health, are at least 6 months of age, and have received their proper vaccinations. Among other things, this proposed rule is designed to prevent the importation of puppies that have not yet been weaned or have fully developed immune systems, or are sick.

Find more information about APHIS' efforts to improve its enforcement of the AWA.

Check out this response on We the People.

Stay Connected

Stay connected to the White House by signing up for periodic email updates from President Obama and other senior administration officials.

Under PUPS, anyone with ownership or co-ownership of ONE intact bitch qualifies to be examined. That means EVERY BREEDER. Then APHIS will scrutinize how many dogs or puppies you and co-owners have placed or sold in a year. If at or over that number, you must comply with reams of AWA commercial rules and regs that are impossible to meet in a home environment, like keeping dogs on nonporous surfaces. Right now the number needed to be sold.....or OFFERED for sale.....is 50, but HSUS has admitted they intend to ratchet down such numbers with future amendments.

The PUPS bill does NOT apply to commercial breeders, they already fall under APHIS regulations. An "Internet seller?" How many breeders have a WEBSITE? You are now an "internet seller." Make no mistake about it, the intent is to bring every dog breeder under Federal control.

GIVE LOCAL

2011-12-23T12:06:00.001-08:00

Each passing day brings greater awareness about the deceptive practices of the Humane Society of the US. Less than 1% of the money collected by HSUS is used for hands-on care of animals, despite the TV commercials featuring pitiful, neglected cats and dogs. 99% of the budget of the HSUS is spent on salaries, pensions for executives, more fundraising, and excessive lobbying for anti-animal ownership legislation. This excessive lobbying is a violation of their status as a 501C3 tax-exempt "charity".

Despite claiming to protect animals, their actions demonstrate the exact opposite. The HSUS lobbied against no-kill sheltering bills in both Texas and California. The HSUS charges shelters for consultations in which they urge them to kill animals as soon as any mandatory holding period expires. That should clue you in immediately to their agenda. They are not "humane"; they exploit animal abuse and deaths for their own greedy profit motives. The drama works great for fundraising.

Don't be fooled; the intentions of HSUS are not honorable. The HSUS asked the judge in the Vick case to kill all the dogs, even the puppies, while they fundraised off the backs of dogs they never possessed and never intended to help. Then, the HSUS partnered up with dog torturer Vick in a fundraising effort!

Wayne Pacelle claims HSUS isn't anti-meat. But in October 2006, HSUS Vice President Miyun Park delivered some remarks as part of an "Expert Panel on Poultry":

"We don't want any of these animals to be raised and killed. But when we're talking about numbers like 'one million slaughtered in the U.S. in a single hour,' or '48 billion killed every year around the world,' unfortunately we don't have the luxury of waiting until we have the opportunity to get rid of the entire industry. And so because of that, a number of organizations including the Humane Society of the United States, we work on promoting veganism, and encouraging people to make daily choices that will positively impact the welfare of animals, and at the same time to reduce the greatest amount of suffering for these animals. We have a very active cage-free campaign. Are we saying that cage-free eggs are the way to go? No, that's not what we're saying. But we're saying it's a step in the right direction... .."

HSUS clearly said that they want to "get rid of the entire industry". You can't have it more plainly laid out for you than that.

No, don't be fooled by the doublespeak. When the HSUS says they work to "protect" animals, they mean, they work to eliminate domestic animals. The HSUS's goal is to progress us toward a vegan society by lobbying for laws that make animal ownership more expensive and inconvenient. Current employee John Goodwin publicly wrote, "My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture". No meat, milk, eggs, fish, or pets. No hunting, no fishing, no circuses, no rodeos, no zoos, and no animal parks, either.

If you want to help shelter animals, support your local animal shelter. If you want to remove animals from our lives, then by all means, the HSUS is your group!

A few weeks ago, we heard about a new group entering the public arena. Tagged the "Humane Society for Shelter Pets", this group is not actually "new"; according to tax returns filed, it has existed at least since 2010. The group was formed by Didi Culp, a former employee and educational director for the "Humane" Society of the US. Didi knows firsthand about how the HSUS preys upon the unsuspecting public with deceptive fundraising tactics, and how they squander those fraudulently obtained funds. The HSSP has recently taken out newspaper ads and a website promoting shelter pets. Now, this "whistleblower" group is finding itself under attack.

HSUS has launched an all-out frontal assault on the HSSP. Their crime? Setting up an educational campaign and website informing the public that if they intend to help animals in shelters, then they should contribute directly to the shelter. Money contributed to HSUS does not go to shelters! That's an important message. We are glad to see another public education campaign that serves up the truth. Thank you, HSSP!

Surveys show that most people believe that the HSUS is an animal shelter "umbrella" group. The HSUS does nothing to clear up that confusion; in fact, they intentionally use the name "Humane Society" and flash pictures of dogs and cats in their ads to perpetuate their fundraising fraud. "Factory fundraising", as I've heard it referred to. In contrast, the HSSP does not ask for any donations. They do, however, provide on their website a nationwide listing of animal shelters for those who wish to donate directly to them.

HSUS has also made the false public claim that the HSSP was established by the business group "Center for Consumer Freedom". While the CCF did not set up the HSSP (remember, they formed in 2010 or perhaps even earlier), they have provided assistance to the HSSP to help them advertise in an effort to educate consumers on exactly what their donations are used for. Despite the HSSP being an independent entity, the HSUS insists on linking them to CCF, and repeatedly slams the CCF, calling them a "front for animal abuse industries". I do not consider groups like outdoorsmen, ranchers, farmers, dairymen, cattlemen, poultry farmers, and pet breeders to be "abusers". I guess that's the fundamental difference between "them" and "us".

Hooray for the Humane Society for Shelter Pets, and for the Center for Consumer Freedom for providing that group with assistance to spread their message!

From their website, http://www.humaneforpets.org/:

"Give Local. The best thing you can do to help animals in need is to support your local animal shelter."

Why is that message so threatening to HSUS? It's hissing and spitting like a cornered rat....

More information about the personal attacks by HSUS against the HSSP and its founders can be found on http://www.humanewatch.org/.

Where'd You Get That Puppy?

2011-12-15T11:27:00.000-08:00

This article originally appeared in the December 9, 2011 issue of Dog News. It is posted here by permission of the author.

Where’d You Get That Puppy?

Carlotta Cooper

Have you ever noticed how many cute, Toy breed puppies seem to be available for adoption in the northeast/New England area? Does that strike you as odd when shelters in the South and other places say they have too many mixed breed dogs, a shortage of cute puppies, too many big, black Lab mixes that no one wants, and lots of pit bull mixes (sorry, Jan Dykema, “bully breed” mixes)? Why are there so many desirable Toy breed puppies in shelters in the northeast and so many undesirable dogs elsewhere?

There could be several reasons why the northeast has cute, Toy breed puppies when some other parts of the country don’t.

It’s been true for quite a while that puppies are usually “adopted” first at animal shelters. (And, by “adopted,” of course, we mean sold for several hundred dollars with lots of strings attached.) For years puppies have been in short supply because they are cute and cuddly and when many families think of adopting a dog, they automatically think they want to adopt a puppy. And Toy breeds seem to be in even higher demand than other breeds. Just look at the AKC’s list of breeds by registrations. At least half of the top 20 breeds are Toy or small-breed (under 20 pound) dogs, and small breeds are gaining in popularity every year. French Bulldogs, Cavaliers, Brussels Griffons, Norwich Terriers, and Papillons have all shown enormous increases in the last decade.

“Humane Relocation”

After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, rescue groups seem to have become aware of the fact that they could network nationally and send dogs around the country anywhere they wanted to send them. And they didn’t have to be overly concerned about the owners of the dogs emerging to track them down. At the time, it was believed that the rescue groups were acting altruistically, “saving” dogs made homeless by disaster whose owners were probably dead, even though some owners came forward later to track their pets down and demand them back. This led to a number of court cases which usually resulted in the dogs being returned to the original owners. It also showed up the fact that the rescue groups kept amazingly poor records about the dogs, where they were found and where they were sent; and that they did not try to help the dogs get back to their original owners, even when the dogs had microchips or other identifying information.

Since that time, rescue groups have greatly expanded these efforts at so-called “humane relocation,” to the point that they are now often accused of stealing dogs right out of people’s yards. Following the horrific tornado in Joplin, Missouri, in May 2011, hundreds of dogs were taken into the local shelter and many were sent out of state to be adopted by strangers instead of the local rescue groups holding the dogs longer for them to be reclaimed by their owners. The same thing happened following the outbreak of tornadoes in the South in April 2011. Dogs were scooped up and sent to shelters out of state instead of local groups working to reunite them with their owners. Purebred, mixed breed, intact dogs, spayed and neutered. Just dogs in general taken out of their community and sent to out-of-state shelters for adoption.

In some cases, animal rescue workers have even been caught taking animals out of people’s yards when their homes had not been struck by disaster. Following an outbreak of bad weather or flooding, they may have seen a dog chained in his yard, or thought a dog looked like he needed help in some other way, and simply took the dog. That’s putting a charitable spin on the event. In some cases rescuers simply stole dogs from their owners. Sometimes they were not caught in the act, but the dog was later discovered missing and had been “adopted” out to someone in another state. The owners had to plead or go to court to try to get their pets back because of the overzealousness of these “rescuers” who took it upon themselves to play God and decide that the original owner didn’t deserve to keep his dog.

In November a Bulldog named Samson was stolen from his family’s backyard in Vancouver. Police have recommended that two women, Janet Olson and Louise Reid, from A Better Life Dog Rescue, be charged with theft in the case. Olson had already been charged with theft in connection with another dog stolen in April 2011. Police believe the two women were behind a number of other dognappings in which they dressed up in “very official-looking” uniforms emblazoned with the words “Animal Welfare.” According to RCMP Cpl. Drew Grainger, "This investigation quickly revealed Olson and Reid were operating their charitable not-for-profit organization beyond the scope of its mandate and allegedly unlawfully acting beyond their goodwill intentions.”

Grainger said officers watched in an undercover operation as Olson and Reid entered a family's backyard dressed in bogus uniforms and then tried to leave with the family's pet. The women were immediately arrested. Police haven't been able to determine all the reasons why Olson and Reid were allegedly stealing dogs, he said. But they believe the motive may have been the adoption fees the pair collected for placing the stolen animals in new homes.

Dognapping

The line between rescuers who rescue dogs that don’t need rescuing and people who simply steal dogs is a thin one, but there has been an increase in dog theft, according to the AKC. Judging by the reports of stolen dogs online, dog theft is happening all over the U.S. and Canada. And the favorite target of dog thieves is a litter of cute Toy breed puppies, presumably because they can be sold later, individually, for lots of money, and no one will think of asking if the puppies are stolen.

According to Lisa Peterson of the AKC, "We are getting reports almost daily of pets stolen during home invasions, out of parked cars while people are running errands and even snatched from dog lovers out for a walk in the park.”

According to the most recent national statistics available from the American Kennel Club — based on customer and media reports — in the first seven months of the year, 224 pets had been reported stolen, compared to 150 pets in the same period in 2010.

In Delaware at the end of November, a 5-week-old litter of Shih Tzu puppies was stolen from Lisa Ganc’s home while she was out running errands. The thieves left behind more valuable electronics, jewelry, and other items that might interest a thief. Five days earlier a litter of 10 Cane Corso puppies, also 5-weeks-old, had been stolen near Townsend.

In Buena Park, California, thieves broke through the window to steal three Yorkshire Terrier puppies and an adult Yorkie named Staci owned by Linda Bush. Staci (not the mother) has a long list of medical problems and needs medication. One story about the missing puppies blames the recession for all the dog thefts and mentions that in one case a gang burst into a home and stole six Yorkies at gunpoint. According to the Internet story, two of Linda Bush’s puppies were recovered after the owner put up posters offering a reward and two people were arrested on suspicion of burglary. But one puppy and Staci are still missing.

Are some of these stolen puppies ending up in rescues and shelters?

My friend in Setters, Jay Kitchener, thinks so. Jay is the AKC Legislative LIaison to the Gordon Setter Club of America, as well as the Secretary & Editor of the Federation of Maine Dog Clubs. He’s one of the hardest working guys in purebred dogs and he follows anti-breeding laws and other legislation, rescues and shelters, and dog imports, to name just a few of the dog issues that keep him busy.

According to Jay, “As regressive and draconian anti-breeding laws put the brakes on purebred dog breeders nationwide, we can expect there to be more and more dog thefts in the future. The economy has had an effect...with thieves seeing potential big money in a nice purebred dog, particularly if it is visible in a car...Easy money for some, and 'rescue' for others, as individuals...make themselves into cop, judge and jury — claim your dog is being abused or neglected by their standards, needing 'rescue.' People need to investigate, but usually they only see halos on people who claim to be 'rescuers' — a shame, isn't it.”

Breeding for Rescue?

Some people have also pointed out how very fortuitous it is that so many 8-10 week-old Toy breed puppies seem to always be available for adoption at New England shelters. What a wonderful coincidence, isn’t it? Or, is it? Could there possibly be some rescues and shelters who are intentionally breeding puppies to meet the demand for cute Toy and small breed puppies?

There is, without doubt, at least one person who operates as a “rescue” and who posts on her web site that she breeds her dogs to have puppies for sale so she can have more money to rescue other dogs. I used to have her URL but I don’t have it anymore. She was quite open about what she was doing, even if it was probably a silly idea in terms of making money.

But, are there really any rescues and shelters around who are breeding Toy and small breed dogs in order to have a supply for “adoptions”? Keeping in mind that these puppies are often “adopted” for $350 and up at rescues and shelters these days. That’s harder to answer. It does seem suspicious that some shelters in the northeast, which have been practically put out of business by MSN and anti-breeding laws, have a constant supply of these cute puppies at just the perfect age that people want them, don’t you think?

Let’s think about where rescues and shelters might get their breeding dogs. There were certainly lots of breeder raids between 2007 and 2009, when HSUS was pushing strongly for their puppy mill/commercial breeder bills in so many states. We know that many Toy and small breed dogs were taken from breeders in these raids. Some from commercial breeders, some from places with genuinely bad conditions. But some dogs were taken from better breeders and there were also some nice dogs taken (in my estimation) from hobby breeders. Were ALL of these dogs spayed and neutered and adopted out to the public? Or, were any of them retained for breeding purposes? Since 2009 there have been far fewer breeder raids prompted by HSUS as they have turned their attention away from puppy mills/commercial breeders and toward other initiatives. They were tied up in Missouri for quite a while (way to go Missouri!). But there have been occasional raids and Toy and small breed dogs continue to be taken from time to time, across the country.

IF there were people who wanted to supply rescues and shelters with cute, highly adoptable Toy and small breed puppies, it would have been quite easy to keep some of the better breeding dogs taken during these raids and keep breeding them during the last few years. They would have had their pick of Toy breeds. I do say “if” because I don’t have proof that this is happening.

But let’s also ask about the pregnant bitches who were taken during these raids. Did they go full-term and deliver their litters? What happened to those puppies? Were they kept or put up for adoption? It seems there is rarely any follow-up with that kind of information following a raid.

I am not particularly prone to conspiracy theories and I do look for facts and evidence, but I can’t get away from the fact that certain shelters do seem to have a steady supply of desirable puppies at just the right age that people want to “adopt.”

I find it hard to believe that there is a constant stream of dog owners who have “oops” litters of cute Toy puppies and they just bring them into the shelters to drop off. First, we’re talking about New England and I’m always told what wonderful dog laws they have there and how responsible all the dog owners are. So, they wouldn’t be having all of those “oops” litters. And, second, I have a feeling that if a dog owner has a litter of cute Toy breed puppies, they would be smart enough to know that those puppies are valuable. They wouldn’t just drop them off at a shelter. They would sell them themselves. Those New Englanders are pretty sharp, right?

So, we still have the question of where the New England shelters are getting all of those darling little Toy and small breed puppies.

Importation

Now, my friend Jay Kitchener has this to say:

“From 2005 thru 2010 Maine saw so much anti-breeder legislation passed that the extremely radical Animal Legal Defense Fund now rates Maine's laws as second best in the nation. We were told by the supporters of this regressive legislation that it must be passed "because of the horrible dog overpopulation." Now we learn that during those same years shelters and rescues brought over 30,000 dogs to Maine to sell tax-free. Today we have a story of rescues stealing dogs from homes to sell tax-free. Tell me again about "dog overpopulation." Go ahead. Tell me.”

30,000 dogs between 2005 and 2010. That’s a lot for one state, especially a state that doesn’t have a large population, to absorb. (The entire population of Maine is only about 1,328,000, according to the 2010 Census.) In fact, Maine has taken in so many dogs that their State Vet is urging caution in adopting pets from groups that don’t have permits.

Maine requires that all dogs imported into the state receive a list of vaccinations for such diseases as canine distemper, hepatitis and canine parvo at least 14 days prior to their arrival in the state. Additionally, dogs are required to be quarantined for between two and five days — depending on the age of the animal — so that they can be monitored for sickness.

Approved rescue organizations have a track record of following these rules, but there are many other rescues who may not. Some “rescues” operate out of a van or only exist on the Internet. Good rescues, on the other hand, may take dogs north that are healthier than the local dogs that are turned into shelters in Maine.

I should say that I have one veterinarian friend who was under the impression that vets there, who were working with shelters, resented the fact that they were being asked to do spay/neuters on imported dogs. Seems they had originally agreed to do spay/neuters on shelter dogs and then, well, 30,000 dogs came to the state from elsewhere. I suppose that might be grounds for becoming unhappy about the importations.

Other northeastern states have taken strong actions against so many dogs being imported into their states from Southern shelters. Connecticut and the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association have pushed for regulation of dogs imported into their state:

“Thus continued unregulated animal importation exposes Connecticut animals to disease, is unfair to citizens surprised by undisclosed medical issues and the costs to treat these, is inhumane To Connecticut source animals by decreasing their chance of adoption and shifts the cost of animal control activities from other states to our state. HB 5368 will allow animal health officials to control animal importation, prevent disease transmission, help ensure humane transport standards, protect Connecticut animal owners and animals, reduce Connecticut animal control costs and minimize the surrender of newly imported animals. Thank you.”

From that same testimony by the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association, which referred to pet rescue as an “industry,” came this fascinating statement:

“Indeed, some animals are bred specifically for transport and characterization of these animals as needing rescue is misleading.”

So, while I am reluctant to make that accusation without more proof, the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association does make that claim. There may be dogs being intentionally bred to be sold as rescue/shelter dogs.

So, dogs are being imported into New England states from elsewhere, and some in the states are not happy about it. There are many cute Toy and small breed puppies, which is hard to explain. Some of the dogs may be pilfered by rescues; some dogs may be stolen; some may be intentionally bred; but what kind of dogs are being sent north by the shelters in the South?

In early December, in Birmingham, Alabama, the Greater Birmingham Humane Society took possession of 57 Chihuahuas from their breeder. According to a news release from the GBHS, “Due to rising costs and a struggling economy, the owner is no longer able to care for these animals.” Although the GBHS tries to pass this event off as an owner who is having problems because of the economy, it occurs to me that a breeder with 57 Toy dogs, many of them likely to be puppies which would sell well at Christmas, probably had to be coerced into parting with his dogs. The article says that “many” of the dogs were five years old or older...and many weren't. No specific numbers are given.

Half of the dogs were going to eventually be taken by North Shore Animal League to their facility in Port Washington, New York. Ah, yes. Another northeastern destination. Were the youngest and cutest of the Chihuahuas headed there? Is this how northeastern shelters keep themselves stocked with cute Toy breed puppies? Due to the efforts in other states to force breeders to surrender dogs? The local adoption fee for the Chihuahuas who remain in Birmingham will be $150. It's a good bet that the dogs that end up in Port Washington, New York, with the North Shore Animal League will command a much higher fee.

Actions like this one aren't called “raids” now. Instead, local pressure is brought to bear on breeders to make them surrender their dogs under the color of law. But the result is the same. Shelters and rescues are making money by forcing breeders to give up their puppies and dogs and fooling the public into believing that they are acting out of love for the dogs.

In one article, which I consider representative, 40 Young-Williams dogs head to barren New England shelters, 40 dogs were being sent to New England shelters. Out of those 40 dogs, 24 were adult dogs and 16 were puppies. The dogs were headed to Massachusetts and Connecticut.

“If the experience goes well, Northeast Animal Shelter in Salem, Mass., has agreed to take 40 to 50 animals a month from Young-Williams.”

Could this kind of program account for all of the cute puppies in northeastern shelters? How many similar relationships does each shelter have? How many puppies do they take in and adopt out each month? We would need to know figures like that in order to form a better idea about the sources of the puppies for these shelters. But I think it seems obvious that there are a lot of loose ends and unanswered questions about where these puppies are coming from. I think it’s possible that shelters in the South are cherrypicking the dogs and puppies they send to northeastern shelters. They may be sending them an excess of cute Toy and small breed puppies, leaving people in the South with large breed adult dogs to adopt, older dogs, and other dogs that most people consider less desirable. Everyone wants a cute puppy, whether we like it or not.

I think we need to find out more information about how these puppies are supplied, who makes the decisions, and whether or not there really are dogs being bred specifically for “adoption” by rescues and shelters. We are constantly told that we have a dog overpopulation problem. We fight MSN attempts and laws against breeding. Serious dog breeders are vilified. If there are people who are breeding dogs for rescues and shelters so they can sell them for more money, we need to find out and make it stop. Rescues and shelters have already become too much like pet stores. But breeding so they have inventory is going too far.

Don't Pee on my Leg and Tell Me It's Raining!

2011-12-07T17:41:00.000-08:00

Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS) recently posted an anti-dog breeder, anti-pet store message on their "network" website. In an article entitled "Humane Trend Continues", they take delight in the fact that fewer pet stores nowadays are offering pets for sale. 'Course, that is happening with a little gentle persuasion by pet store protesters who are actually animal enterprise terrorists. Extolling the virtues of "adopting" rather than "shopping", they claim that adoption of rescued animals is the way to shut down what they call "puppy mills".

Really? Well, this sort of rhetoric is really nothing new. It's a recurrent theme with animal extremist groups. HSUS wages a constant smear campaign against dog breeders, and PETA's Ingrid Newkirk has stated, that in her ideal world: "….we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animals shelters and the streets….eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance."

How's that for crazy talk? Yep, it's 'out there', direct from the minds of lunatics. We all laughed when we first heard Ingrid spouting such ideas. Who would ever take such nonsense seriously? we chuckled.

But today, right here, right now, in 2011, BFAS, HSUS and the other fringe groups are taking such anti-pet ideas mainstream! And getting actual consideration and legitimization of their oddball ideas.

Some readers to the BFAS website apparently disagreed with this anti-breeder message. Several comments were posted to the site, but strangely enough, within a few hours all those critical comments were ELIMINATED by "Best Friends". These were factual posts, with links to new articles and facts about the present state of the rescue industry in the US.

Never fear! By the magic of the internet, I have saved a few of the choicest comments…..and here they are!

"Kaitlyn Chaney" wrote: "How does Best Friends reconcile the fact that many "rescued" dogs are strays from Mexico, Taiwan, the Caribbean, Spain, Romania and other distant locales? There is also evidence surfacing that puppies are being bred in foreign lands specifically for the "rescue" market. Many rescues currently operate as unregulated pet stores. Breeders in the US have PLENTY of rules and regulations already...so much so that very few small, ethical breeders remain. Sorry but I don't believe that "rescued" dogs with unknown backgrounds, genetics and health histories are preferable to dogs bred in the US under regulated conditions. Several dogs imported in recent years have also been infected with rabies."

Pretty heavy accusations, eh? If true, this blows their theory of "overpopulation" due to "puppy mill" breeding right out of the water. So, Best Friends pulled in their "top gun" anti-pet store crusader, Elizabeth Oreck, to conjure up a response. Ms. Oreck wrote that, while BFAS is not opposed to responsible dog breeders, they feel that the more "humane choice" was to adopt a rescued animal. This, she reasons, will help reduce "overpopulation" and ease the burden on shelters. She denied that there is evidence that rescues practice importation of animals from distant lands, but believes that even if it happens, it is preferable to "adopt" rather than "shop" for purposely-bred dogs.

Here we go, back to those kooky Newkirkian ideas again! No breeding, just street refugees allowed as pets….oops, sorry for the faux pas. They aren't "pets"; that's "speciesist" according to the Newkirk/Best Friends philosophy. They are "companion animals" instead.

Kaitlyn then responded with a partial list of the many "rescue" groups that currently import dogs:

Save A Sato

Compassion Without Borders

Save a Mexican Mutt

Pets from Paradise

Helen Woodward Humane Society (imports dogs from Romania)

Dogs Without Borders

Mary Chekov then asked, Don't you people read the news or watch TV? Rescues import dogs all the time.

Examples were given….there were over 40 Beagles imported from Spain by a rescue group into Los Angeles just last week. Links to a couple of article documenting pet importation by "rescues" were also listed. We've posted those here before, the 2007 ABC news report entitled "300,000 imported puppies prompt rabies concerns" and the 2003 Tufts article "Filling Empty Dog Pounds"…. There was also an article in USA Today just a few months ago, about the pet importation situation.…see the comments section of our blog article "It's Raining Dogs….From Other Countries" for a link to that article, along with many others. NAIA has a recent article on their site as well, documenting the many "rescue" groups that import dogs on a regular basis.

"DougW" wrote: "If you want to keep dogs out of shelters, buy a dog from a good breeder and KEEP it."

Smart guy, that Doug.

"Freedom Lover" wrote: "That philosophy is so totally WRONG!!!! You, of all people, should be aware and appreciative of why pure-breds are needed. You know – I supported you when you rehabilitated and went to bat for the Vicks' dogs – when the jerks at H$U$ wanted them destroyed. That was a proud moment in your history. However – you have shown your true colors – and it's embarrassing. I didn't think you were a butt-kisser of H$U$ - but apparently I was wrong!"

"Kelty Gordon" wrote: "So, what is the difference between selling supposed puppy mill dogs from pet stores vs selling unhealthy imported dogs from shelters…they're both sales. At least the pet shops have rules and regulations governing the conditions and sales of their puppies. Are the shelters just trying to eliminate the competition?"

Yes, the heat was on, but Best Friends chose to firebomb the kitchen. All comments….now GONE. Erased, as though they never existed.

BFAS can't allow the public to know the TRUTH; to see to the warts of the "rescue" industry exposed. You see, groups like BFAS get fewer donations when the truth about their industry is made public. And they depend on the public making generous donations to fund their existence and to pay for their salaries. And I bet you thought that Best Friends was a volunteer organization! NOT!!! Lots of people on their payroll. Best Friends discovered years ago that it is more lucrative to be an animal charity than a church. Their old-time religious zeal magically transformed into animal fervor.

Heck, nothing wrong with turning a buck and making a fair profit. But please, BFAS…..admit that is what you are doing. Tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Hiding comments to your articles show us that, well, you have something to HIDE! And please, enough with the anti-dog breeding rhetoric already.

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Pot, Meet Kettle!

2011-12-01T23:56:00.000-08:00

The “HumaneWatch” website has been doing a wonderful job exposing the deception of the Humane Society of the US. We’ve also blogged here about some of the more blatant examples of the fraud and hypocrisy of the HSUS. Now this week, we are pleased to report that a fledgling group, the "Humane Society for Shelter Pets" has been formed. One of the co-directors of this new group is a former director of education for the HSUS. This new group has both educational and "whistleblower" functions...their website urges individuals to support their local shelters instead of the HSUS.

The HSUS spends precious little of their vast income on actual care of homeless pets, which is what one might reasonably expect from a group calling itself a “Humane Society”. Most of their cash is spent lobbying for laws promoting the extermination of domestic animals, and the elimination of all animal agriculture. Even such time-honored traditions as hunting and fishing are on the HSUS hit list. A vegan society is their radical, extremist goal. HSUS has launched an all-out attack against any business that involves animals….and then cries foul when those businesses fight back for their very survival.

The credibility of the HSUS has been slipping dramatically lately, and they have lashed out with an aggressive attack against HumaneWatch and others who criticize them. The HSUS claims that HumaneWatch is a “corporate front group that defends animal abuse for profit”, and that other groups who expose their lies are “special interest groups”. Hmmm….pot, meet kettle!

HSUS is a front group for radical, vegan ideologues. If that isn’t a special interest group, (albeit a pretty kooky one), I don’t know what is. HSUS works hand-in-hand with notorious dog torturer Michael Vick….for profit. They charge shelters for consultations in which they advise them to kill animals as soon as mandatory holding periods expire. Defending the institutionalized abuse that is rampant in “shelters”….for profit! HSUS lobbies against compassionate No Kill sheltering methods and any laws that would require No Kill methods be employed by animal control departments. HSUS is the number one exploiter of animals, as they play on the heartstrings of the public with pictures of abuse and neglect, then collect donations that do not go to help these animals. Again, exploiting and abusing animals….for their own greed and profit!

Here’s an excerpt from Wayne Pacelle’s blog yesterday, where he criticizes the founder of the Center for Consumer Freedom and HumaneWatch:

“….his groups don't feed one animal, shelter one homeless person, or provide any other tangible social service. They are charitable organizations in name only, and Berman and his for-profit public relations company pocket a large share or even a majority of the total revenue. It's a personal enrichment scam of the
highest order, and he's the architect of the con job.”

Hilarious! He must be looking in the mirror, right?

The Humane Society for Shelter Pets directs people to their local shelters when they wish to adopt a pet, to donate money or to volunteer. Why is HSUS upset? Maybe because their days of conning the public are coming to an end.

Possible Reasons Dogs In Europe Live Longer

2011-12-01T11:15:00.001-08:00

Two Possible Reasons Dogs Live longer in Europe

Dr. Becker's Comments:

In part 2 of my interview with Ted, we discussed how being the 'alpha' in your relationship with your dog may create a lack of freedom, an inequality, for your pet that can increase stress hormones and impact his health.

We also talked about the ingenious way Ted tracks his dog Pukka when he's not with him. Pukka is one lucky dog – he has the freedom to come and go from Ted's home as he sees fit, using the dog door Ted installed for his previous canine companion, Merle.

And we discussed Ted's keen interest in canine health, how he went about selecting Pukka, and how he's using his research into both subjects as the premise for a new book he's writing, Why Dogs Die Young, which will be out next year.

Ted's Around-the-World Research Project

Like most writers today, Ted is able to do a great deal of his research using the Internet. But he's also done quite a bit of traveling to learn all he can about canine health.

Ted explains that in writing his new book, he felt the need to visit veterinary teaching centers, to interview geneticists, and also to see how dogs live in other parts of the world. He makes the excellent point that the U.S. is relatively parochial, or insulated. We're bordered by oceans east and west, a single country to the north and another to the south. We really don't have a lot of opportunity to know how other cultures do things, and what we do hear or see is often sifted through the media.

Ted had seen some data that indicated dogs in Europe tend to live about a year longer than dogs in this country. So off he went – to England, Ireland, Sweden, Russia, Switzerland, Austria, France, Germany and Italy!

He visited shelters. He talked to breeders and attended dog shows. He asked people on the street how they cared for their dogs. And he went to lots of pet stores and looked at the food they sold. The kibble in Europe isn't all that different from American kibble, as it turns out.

But European dogs do receive fewer vaccinations. Rabies has been essentially eradicated in Western Europe, so dogs that don't travel aren't required to get rabies vaccines. This probably provides them some protection from vaccine-related illness, especially since the rabies vaccine with its aluminum-containing adjuvant, is one of the more troublesome vaccines administered to dogs.

Spaying and Neutering – Europe versus North America

Ted goes on to explain that probably the biggest difference between how dogs in Europe are raised versus dogs in the U.S. is, Europe doesn't spay or neuter at nearly the rate we do in North America.

As I've written about here at MercolaHealthyPets.com, and a subject Ted and I have discussed more than once, sterilization seems to have a significant impact on both the endocrine and immune systems of dogs.

Ted points out there's no long-term study that has followed spayed and neutered dogs and intact dogs over their lifetimes to say definitively, 'Yes, Group A lives longer and has few chronic diseases.' But there's certainly a growing body of evidence pointing in that direction.

Ted explains that when he talks about the spay/neuter difference in front of groups, he receives a lot of concerned feedback and even angry responses, particularly from folks in the shelter community. People in the shelter community make the point that sterilization is how we control the dog population in North America.

So Ted went on to research the effectiveness of U.S. shelter operations. He wanted to know why we're still euthanizing an estimated two millions dogs each year. What are the key factors?

Ted talked to a lot of people in shelter leadership positions, and it seems the problem is becoming more one of supply and demand rather than that no one wants those two million homeless dogs. It's more a problem these days of connecting people with the dogs they want – getting the right dogs to the right shelters for the people who want to adopt them.

Why Not Tubal Ligations and Vasectomies Instead of Spay/Neuter?

When Ted talked to the shelter community about the possibility of doing vasectomies and tubal ligations rather than spaying and neutering in order to preserve the sex hormones, the response he received made a lot of sense. The shelter folks asked, 'Well, what do you do in a shelter where you have all these female dogs in estrus (heat) and all these howling male dogs? How do you make that work in a shelter environment?' Ted feels this is a very valid question.

The shelter community feels that while vasectomies and tubal ligations may be fine for individual owners who can keep their female dogs sequestered away from male dogs during heats, there's no practical way for a shelter to manage a similar arrangement. And Ted agrees, of course.

But Ted poses the question for those of us not running shelters. Why spay or neuter when there is so much evidence it may not be the best thing for the dog's health -- especially when there are alternatives available?

Ted asked his research assistant to call all 26 veterinary teaching colleges in the U.S. And he discovered not one of them is offering instruction on vasectomies and tubal ligations.

Some of those called became incensed Ted would even suggest things should change, which puzzled him. So he would ask, 'Are you invested in having fewer unwanted puppies, or are you invested in spaying and neutering?' Some of the people he talked to had no answer for his question. Others were quite honest in sharing they felt they were 'too old to change.'

Ted then mentioned a conversation he and I once had on the subject, and how he remembered it took me about 40 cadavers to learn how to do vasectomies and tubal ligations.

And he's right – I had to practice. And in fact, I practiced on wildlife, because they were about the only animals I came across that were still intact. So when someone dropped off, say, an opossum or a raccoon hit by a car – or if an animal died at my clinic – I would practice by performing a vasectomy or a tubal ligation on them.

People in the U.S. are Conditioned to Believe Being a Responsible Pet Owner Means Spaying or Neutering

It's a frustrating subject because in this country, we equate being responsible with spaying and neutering. We don't just alter an animal's ability to reproduce, we insist on removing important body parts like the testicles and ovaries.

And in fact, it is to the point where some people don't even recognize testicles on a dog when they see them. They're like, 'What are those?' When they realize what they are, they ask why they're still there. This is instead of asking whether the human with the dog is a responsible pet owner and has perhaps found the rare veterinarian who will actually perform a vasectomy. A male dog that has received a vasectomy gets to keep his testicles.

I have even done phone consults with people in Arizona who choose to drive to California for an appointment with a soft tissue veterinary surgeon who will do a vasectomy for $1,500.

This is a very unfortunate situation, when the technique could easily be taught in vet schools and made widely available to pet owners in every state. What needs to happen is a change in mindset.

I share with Ted that I think it's awesome he's willing to bring the issue to light so hopefully, at some point, we can come up with a better solution to control our pet population.

Ted agrees that culturally, we've succeeded in making spaying and neutering our default position. Pet owners blindly follow the program without understanding the potential health impact or that there are alternatives.

Ted mentions that when he interviewed Bruce Fogle, a British vet and author of many books, he said something very interesting. Fogle said, 'My North American clients living in London get a male dog, bring him to me and tell me to neuter.' And he asks them why. Their response: 'Well, you have to neuter male dogs!' And Fogle again asks them why. They have no other answer – no medical reason. They just assume it must be done.

He asks them, 'Is your dog free-roaming?' They answer no. 'Do you keep it on a leash?' They answer yes. 'Is it in the dog park under your supervision?' Again the answer is yes. So Fogle asks them who, exactly, their dog is going to impregnate.

Fogle told Ted it's very rare that a British citizen brings him a dog to neuter.

Off With Those Testicles!

Ted says he gets a lot of comments about Pukka when people notice he has testicles. He's gotten some extremely angry responses, interestingly, always from women and never from a man. A woman will watch Pukka walking away and she'll say, 'He's got balls!' This is a direct quote!

And Ted will respond, 'Well, yeah. He's a male dog.' So the next question is, 'Aren't you going to fix him?' And Ted says, 'Why? There are no intact female dogs in Kelly, Wyoming. Kelly has 35 dogs and we know them all. You don't move to Kelly anonymously. It's just too small.'

I agree with Ted that people equate your responsibility as a dog owner with whether or not your pet is neutered. We've been conditioned to believe that if we choose not to neuter (despite the individual circumstances in which our dog lives), we are being wildly irresponsible.

I worked at a kill shelter as a younger person, and we firmly believed owners who didn't spay or neuter were simply uneducated. And I could do enough talking as an employee of the shelter to convince people they must spay or neuter. At that point in my life, I believed pet owners couldn't necessarily be trusted to know what to do, and I also believed dogs were healthier if they were spayed or neutered.

These days, I have to re-educate a lot of my clients … after I apologize. I've cried many tears in my exam room as I apologized for creating some endocrine-related disease or other by insisting a pet be spayed or neutered, many of them before puberty.

I just didn't know then what I know now. And it saddens me.

Breeding Dogs: Another No No?

Ted reveals that another cultural dynamic he sees operating here is in regard to breeding dogs.

Ted might tell someone: 'Pukka's got good genes. I spent a lot of time looking for genes like his. He's clear for centronuclear myopathy. He's clear for PRA (a genetic eye disease). He's got good hips and good elbows. It might be nice to pass these genes on.'

The response is almost always 'You want to breed him?' in a tone that says clearly this is not a good thing. There is a small but vocal minority of the dog-owning population in this country that thinks breeding any dog is morally reprehensible.

Ted's response is, 'If you carry that line of thinking to its logical conclusion, there are no more dogs.'

He has to ask, 'Where do we think dogs come from?' Dogs must breed to make more dogs. The question should be, how can we make more dogs that are the healthiest dogs possible?

To alter every dog sounds crazy to Ted. It also takes a lot of genetically healthy dogs out of the population.

Ted feels what spay/neuter has done in the shelter population is what narrowing the funnel of purebred dogs to those with exaggerated anatomical features has done in the purebred population.

Both strategies have decreased the genetic diversity of dogs. Choosing only certain popular sires in the purebred world, and spaying or neutering everything that moves in the shelter world, has created fewer and fewer good sets of dog genes out there. At the same time, it has increased the incidence of disease because we are providing ever greater opportunities for recessive genes to meet.

Ted doesn't believe people are thinking through the issue of long-term canine health when they take the approach to 'Spay and neuter everyone.'

I agree, and another painful fact is that all the backyard breeders will continue to breed, regardless. They don't always care if the thyroid is clear, or the eyes, elbows, or hips.

The challenge is to try to protect and preserve stable, viable gene pools, when the underlying tone here is no dog should be bred ever again.

Ted will touch on this in his new book, as well as the overpopulation problem. He's spent a lot of time researching those issues, which is wonderful. He'll be asking some really tough questions that even the shelter community has not thought through.

The Dogs from Spain

2011-11-25T00:07:00.000-08:00

(To the tune of "The Rain in Spain" from Lerner and Loewe's "My Fair Lady")

Ready? All together now:

The dogs from Spain come mainly in by plane.

By George she's got it! By George she's got it!

The dogs from Spain come mainly in by plane.

In Hartford, Her-e-ford and Hamp-sheer?

Hoarding hardly ever happens!

How kind of you to let me come!
Now once again, where's it insane?

On the plane, on the plane!

And where's that crazy plane?

From SPAIN. From SPAIN!

The dogs from Spain come mainly in by plane...

"Dozens of dogs rescued who have never been out of their cages! Film at 11!"

Over forty beagles have been "rescued" from a research lab in Spain, and flown to Los Angeles for adoption. The first problem with this scenario is, in order for an operation to be a "rescue", there would have to have been some sort of resistance to the confiscation of the dogs. These dogs were voluntarily handed over by the lab as they were closing down their business.

The cost of the operation? CBS reported that in excess of $100,000 was spent to relocate these dogs. Wouldn't that money have gone a long way toward helping animals in need right here in the US? The animal shelters in Los Angeles claim to not have enough homes for the animal sourced locally. Aren't there people in Western Europe who would have been glad to adopt these cute beagles, instead of relocating them thousands of miles away?

Naturally, the news painted a gloomy picture about how mistreated the beagles were; how they had never been out of cages, how they were in poor condition. Yet when seen on the news program, the dogs appear to be in fine condition and weight, walking perfectly normally, wagging their tails, happy and friendly. Not exactly the picture of abuse and neglect.

But yeah, we've got it. We've really got it! Rescues need plenty of cute purebred dogs to satisfy demand from their customers. And the sadder the tale of woe, the bigger the sensationalism and the quicker they move out.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/11/24/40-beagles-rescued-from-testing-lab-in-spain-arrive-at-lax/#comment-225320

http://blog.petrelocation.com/blog/pet-relocation-company-news/beagle-freedom-project-rescuing-41-beagles-from-spain-in-need-of-foster-homes

21st Century Witch Hunt

2011-11-04T00:06:00.001-07:00

We Americans are living in a state of moral panic. The general consensus is that PUPPY MILLS are a major problem today. Animal rights groups have whipped up a frenzy of hysteria against the perceived proliferation of abusive breeders. Ostensibly, they must be on every corner!

Oprah has produced a television expose to uncover "puppy mills". There was another recent feature called "Madonna of the Mills" intended to raise awareness on the issue, in case anyone might have missed the Gospel According to St. Oprah. The Oprah show also presented the president of the HSUS as a presumed authority on the topic.

The Humane Society of the US is so tuned into righting the wrongs of dog breeding that they now have a toll-free hot line for the express purpose of reporting of "puppy mills" by the public. [1] No description or definition is offered for that "PM" term, but hey, lets not let a little thing like knowing what we are talking about stand in the way of our hangin' fun times.

Now the HSUS is in no position to sit in judgement of anyone else, with their fraudulent fundraising, and their illegal and immoral abuse of their tax-free status in lobbying for legislation to squelch animal ownership. They even promote policies that result in the killing of more and more animals in shelters. Nevertheless, the HSUS seems hell-bent on sitting as judge, jury and executioner of breeders, wherever they can find them. And now, they hope the public will make that discovery phase quick and easy for them.

Not to be outdone, the Canadian SPCA is also urging the public to rat out the mills that they claim are "widespread". The definition used by the Canadian SPCA seems to be those who are unlicensed, or who sell for a profit, rather than those who are abusive and cruel. Again, just what exactly is a "puppy mill"? Depends on which way the wind is blowing. (2)

The public is bombarded with media propaganda produced by big national animal groups screaming inane slogans like "puppies aren't products" and "pets aren't presents"; we must "adopt not shop" and other lame, anti-consumerist messages. One might even be the target of righteous indignation should he <gasp> DARE to buy a puppy or kitten from a breeder or a pet store. Let's not forget the "hoarders" who may not actually breed but who need to be stopped nonetheless, and of course those ignorant "backyard breeders" too. We can lump those under the "puppy mill" umbrella if need be.

Of course, these tips to hotlines are meant to result in seizures of as many animals as possible. The AR groups love to seize animals and sterilize the lot of them. Even if the raids are eventually declared groundless or illegal, they will have achieved the goal of breaking the breeding cycle and bankrupting the owner, thereby destroying his or her life. Getting rid of a breeder....what a feather in the cap of the morally superior! And less births means less animals around for us cruel humans to abuse. The anti-breeding campaign will be relentless until people just plain no longer have animals in their homes.

AR mob leaders incite panicked townsfolk to lynch suspected witches. Can you survive the hysteria? Can they manage to find an actual witch?

From Wikipedia:

Witch hunt - A search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic, mass hysteria and lynching, but in historical instances also legally sanctioned and involving official witchcraft trials.

From Cambridge Dictionary Online:

witch hunt - an attempt to find and punish people whose opinions are unpopular and who are said to be a danger to society

From Your Dictionary:

A witch hunt describes a situation where accusations are made freely, especially against someone or something that is not popular with the majority.

From Answers.com;

An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.

So if we don't agree with the extremists' views that breeding should be stopped, I suppose we have to expect the witch hunt. The majority view these days is that dog breeding = abuse. After just about any "rescue", you will read in a press release:

"She won't have to have any more puppies ever again."

The horror of it all! Breeding! Reproducing! Did we mention that the attitude is puritanical?

More than 10,000 large, substandard mass producers of puppies, often referred to as puppy mills, house 200,000 to 400,000 breeding dogs that produce 2 million to 4 million puppies a year, estimates HSUS' Stephanie Shain, senior director its Stop Puppy Mills project. [1]

Ever wonder where in the world they pull those numbers from? Just out of thin air, or out of some orifice filled with hot air, anyway.

Don't put those pitchforks and torches away just yet, there's definitely a 21st century witch hunt in progress. Lynchings continue as they have for centuries. The script has been slightly rewritten, but the overall storyline remains unchanged. Today's witches include those vaguely described puppy mills, hoarders and backyard breeders. We don't know exactly who they are and what they do, but one thing we do know; there are thousands of them and they must all burn at the stake!

Senseless in San Diego

2011-10-16T13:31:00.001-07:00

Despite record low shelter numbers, and thousands of dog smuggled across the border into San Diego County each year, the city of Chula Vista is considering a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance

by Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary, California Federation of Dog Clubs

According to the latest US Census, San Diego County is home to over 3 million people. And, by my calculations, there are approximately 2/3 of a million owned dogs in San Diego County. And close to that many owned cats, as well.

How do we arrive at this figure? Over 39% of US households own at least one dog, according to the latest American Pet Products Manufacturers survey. Further, 40% of dog-owning households own multiple dogs. San Diego County contains over a million households. Crunching the numbers, the estimate is that San Diego County is home to at least 625,000 dogs.

Further, shelter numbers in San Diego County (as available on the website of the California Department of Public Health) reveal that, in 2009, for the entire county, there were 371 dogs killed in San Diego shelters. That's less than 0.06% of all the owned dogs in San Diego County.

In 2010, less than 1% (0.78%) of all the dogs in the county, or 4869 total dogs, were killed in San Diego shelters. The exact number of dogs who were truly adoptable, and not ill, injured, aggressive or otherwise not adoptable, is not known, but of course would be even lower than that 3/4 of 1%.

From "Maddie's Fund" website:

"Saving all of our healthy and treatable shelter dogs and cats by 2015 is more than possible - we're almost there!"

Not many when put into perspective, right? Of course, there is always room for improvement. And, none of us want to see any adoptable pet killed unnecessarily.

In fact, no shelter in San Diego County should be killing any adoptable animals. There is a huge market for dogs in San Diego County. Those hundreds of thousands of dogs have to come from somewhere. If the average lifespan for a dog is about 10 years, then San Diego County will need over 60,000 new puppies each year. Demand far outstrips available supply. At least one shelter in the County, Helen Woodward Humane Society, imports dogs from other states, and sometimes from as far away as Romania. When it was noticed that a proliferation of sickly puppies were being smuggled in from Mexico and sold to unsuspecting consumers in the greater San Diego area, a US Border Patrol survey was conducted in 2005. The survey concluded that, each year, nearly 10,000 dogs and puppies are brought into San Diego County from Mexico.

The City of Chula Vista is the second largest city in San Diego County (after the City of San Diego), and is situated about 10 miles from the Mexican border. Chula Vista undoubtedly absorbs thousands of smuggled puppies each year.

Ignoring the existing market demand and lack of locally-sourced puppies, Chula Vista City Councilman Rudy Ramirez has decided that a mandatory spay-neuter law is needed. Now perhaps we can't blame this gentleman for believing such a law might be necessary. On the City's animal control website, we find this:

The Chula Vista Animal Care Facility encourages owners to always spay and neuter their pets. There is a serious pet overpopulation problem in San Diego County that has resulted in thousands of euthanizations each year.

The fact is that euthanizations in San Diego County are down significantly. The number of dogs euthanized in 2010 is down by 70% over the numbers killed in the late 1990s. Remember, some of these euthanized animals were severely injured, sick, aggressive, or otherwise not savable. Clearly, great progress is being made in the reduction of shelter intakes and deaths. And, this success was achieved without the use of coercive legislation.

"A serious pet overpopulation problem in San Diego County"? There is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. Let's put the figures into perspective. There are over 3 million residents in San Diego County. Last year, one animal entered a shelter for every 63 county residents. One dog was killed for every 637 county residents. One cat was killed for every 327 county residents.

When animals are killed in shelters, it cannot be reasonably blamed on "overpopulation." The number of puppies smuggled in to San Diego County is more than DOUBLE the number killed in shelters. There is a market for pets in San Diego. Spaying/neutering all the local dogs and cats will remove the best sources for healthy, well-bred and well-socialized animals. People won't own fewer pets; they'll just get them from somewhere else. A mandatory spay/neuter proposal would only serve to increase the black market demand and to promote the breeding of dogs in foreign puppy mills.

While the goal of reducing shelter deaths is laudable, mandatory spay-neuter laws don't help. In fact, the opposite is true. Every locale that has enacted a mandatory spay/neuter law has seen a RISE in shelter admissions and killings.

San Mateo County's Peninsula Humane Society spearheaded the nation's first mandatory spay/neuter law. They did not have the expected success with that approach. In the areas of the county where the ordinance was implemented, dog deaths increased by 126 percent, while cat deaths went up by 86 percent. Licensing dropped by 35 percent.
Fort Worth, Texas repealed their mandatory spay and neuter law as licensing and compliance plummeted, and cases of rabies increased.
Memphis, TN passed a mandatory spay and neuter law last year. Since then, shelter intakes have risen 8% in that city.
Los Angeles is another case in point. After decades of steadily declining shelter numbers, LA reversed the good trend in one fell swoop with enactment of a mandatory spay and neuter law. Intakes and deaths immediately rose by over 30% and continue in an upward spiral.
Lake County, CA has has a mandatory spay-neuter law. Their shelter killings are now four times higher than the state average.
Montgomery County, MD repealed their MSN ordinance after there was no improvement in shelter deaths, but there was a 50% drop in licensing compliance.
Aurora, Colorado, also has had a dramatic drop in licensing compliance since their mandatory spay-neuter law passed.

No mainstream animal welfare organization supports mandatory spay and neuter. The American Veterinary Medical Association opposes it. So does Best Friends Animal Society, American Humane Association, Maddie's Fund, Alley Cat Allies, the American Kennel Club and the No Kill Advocacy Center. The ASPCA also opposes mandatory spay neuter, saying:

"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."

Mandatory spay and neuter does not work because it does not address the reasons that animals enter shelters. Those reasons are varied, but they have nothing to do with births. Animals enter shelters due to social problems like loss of a job, home foreclosure, or divorce or death of the owner. Mandatory spay/neuter does nothing to help pets remain in their homes. Ownerless cats make up a large portion of shelter intakes and spay-neuter laws won't reduce the numbers of feral cats.

Sometimes there are behavioral issues for which training programs might provide a useful solution. To help get more animals adopted, shelters could implement more proactive ideas like extended hours, foster programs and off-site adoptions. Advertising campaigns can help educate prospective pet owners to consider a shelter animal when they are thinking of getting their next pet. Trap-neuter-release programs are proven methods for feral cat population control.

Besides, a recent national pet population survey reveals that 78% of owned dogs and 88% of owned cats are already sterilized. The public is cooperating with voluntary spay and neuter...in droves!

Education coupled with voluntary, low-cost sterilization clinics, has been very successful. Collaborative, supportive programs always outperform punitive and coercive programs like forced spay/neuter. Such laws do not serve the best interests of pets or their owners.

Community programs in our California cities should be based on education, science and fact, and modelled after programs with proven success. Mandatory spay-neuter is a proven failure. Chula Vista officials should reject this cruel and counterproductive policy.

Please attend Rudy Ramirez's "town hall meetings" and make your voice heard on this issue.

Chula Vista City Hall

276 Fourth Ave.

(Fourth and F St)

Chula Vista, CA 91910

Monday October 17 @ 6 pm

Thursday October 20 @ 1 pm

Saturday October 29 @ 9 am

And now, for a glimpse into the crystal ball:

Dear Abby,

Recently my city forced me to have my dog Chipotle neutered. Chipotle was my best friend! I took him wherever I went. Unfortunately, Chipotle was a tiny Chihuahua who barely weighed three pounds. He died during his neuter surgery. I am devastated. What should I do?

Signed,

"Chumless in Chula Vista"

Dear "Chumless",

First, I'm very sorry about the loss of your Chihuahua "Chipotle". There is no sense suing the veterinarian when the City of Chula Vista is clearly the responsible party. Get a good lawyer and take them for every gold Chip in their treasure Chest.

Abby

Designer Dogs

2011-10-03T22:19:00.000-07:00

DESIGNER DOGS:

COMMENTS ON DELIBERATELY BRED INTERBREED CROSSES

By Bonnie Dalzell, MA

October 3, 2011. I corresponded for a brief time with one of the main Aussie Labradoodle breeders. As I recall from my correspondence, the F1 cross inherits the lab type coat so you have to back cross the poodle or breed to another F1 to get the non-shedding coat. In the first case you get a 3/4 poodle in the second you would need to have two different relatively unrelated labs and poodles to get decent genetic diversity in the F2's and of course only 1/4th of the F2's would have the desired non shedding coat.

Once you start breeding poodle coat to poodle coat you will keep it, of course, as it is recessive. Still, in order to have a viable breed, you should start with something like 20 lab - poodle pairs of relatively unrelated dogs or you are going to have an even more inbred "new breed" than the most inbred of the foundation breeds.

What prompted my correspondence with the lady in Australia was that the local rescue I help with was encountering some very aggressive male labradoodles. What is not appreciated by the general public is that some male standard poodles can be rather dominant and aggressive on maturity if not raised by a fairly strong minded, pack leader type owner.

Well, it seems that rather than getting the trainability of the poodle and the laid back (although full speed ahead energy) personality of the lab, many of the Labradoodle males were showing the strong, dominant personality of the poodle and the full speed ahead high energy personality of the Labrador. Just what you do not want in a dog that may be going to some owner who is attracted to the dog because it has a cute name.

As a dog trainer I have had two instances of personal experience with very strong-willed Labradoodles. In the right home they would have been fine but neither of them were suitable for the soft-tempered people who were their owners.

I have also met delightful Labradoodles. When I talked to the different owners of those dogs, all of them were Australian Labradoodles and had many generations of breeding for working seeing eye and assistance dogs behind them. These latter dogs represent "a breed in the making" - not first and second generation crosses made for the cute dog market without selection for suitable temperament and trainability.

My impression is part of the marketability of these inter breed crosses is that the name needs to have double vowels in it or have a diminutive form to make it sound appealing and cute.

Around 20 years ago a close friend of mine who bred bearded collies and afghan hounds died rather unexpectedly of ovarian cancer. One of her best Afghan bitches was pregnant at the time and I promised to help find homes for the pups when they were an appropriate age.

When the pups came it became obvious as they matured and turned out to have mustache faces that they were bearded collie - afghan crosses, so at an appropriate age we advertised to find pet homes. I called them "Culligans". The cute label helped and we did find good homes for all but one of them. More about that one later.

These dogs were actually part of a traditional "gypsy dog" cross which is called a "lurcher". Note this is not a cute name so people do not fall all over themselves to get or breed lurchers. Lurchers are the cross between a sight hound and a herding dog (specifically a drovers dog - one that moves the flock) or a sighthound and a hunting terrier.

The aim - which does show up in the first generation of the cross - is to get a dog which is a keen hunter but is highly biddable (that is pays attention to what the owner commands). If you breed a greyhound to a border collie and you have your prize lurcher you would breed it back to one of the parent breeds for the next generation and then after that to the other parent breed or to a small terrier. Back and forth between the parent breeds. And since they are bred for hunting (specifically poaching) you only breed from the ones that are good workers.

How did a gypsy or other person hunt with a lurcher? Until a few hundred years ago in England it was illegal for anyone lower in aristocratic rank to own a full-blooded hunting dog such as a greyhound. And anyway, all the game belonged to the aristocrats (remember Robin Hood).

So you strolled along the main road and sent your lurcher into the lord of the manor's fields to fetch you a fat hare (the poorer people were always protein deprived in their diets) and if the dog was returning with the hare and the gamekeeper came up to converse with you - the dog had been trained to hide with his prize in the bushes and not be seen.

A full-blooded greyhound would have caught the hare and perhaps eaten it or charged back to you with the hare no matter who was with you, and then things would have gone very badly for you - a mere peasant or a gypsy.

A number of or modern sight hound breeds have lurcher heritage - whippets are the most obvious, but the Borzoi goes back to crosses between Saluki (Tazi) from Turkey bred to native winter hardy Russian herding dogs with an infusion of the husky-like hunting Laika of Northern Russia. Even the aristocratic English Greyhound had a documented cross in 1770 to the ancestral bulldog. According to Lord Orford who was responsible, the intent was to improve the pluck and courage of the greyhound. As far as I can determine, all modern greyhounds have some ancestors that trace back to this cross because a 4th generation dog from the cross was a highly successful coursing hound.

This is basically a discussion of how a new breed can be formed by crossing breeds. It is important to know how things are inherited. Of course, breeding to select for specific functions not seen in breeds that are otherwise available is very important. In addition, having a number of healthy, vigorous and temperamentally fit dogs from the founding breeds present as parents of the founding population is necessary in order to avoid founding a breed on too small a population and producing dogs in which health is at risk due to inbreeding depression.

Simply doing F1 crosses to produce cute dogs with cute pseudo breed names to appeal to novelty owners in order to make money is against the long term well being of dog breeds as such.

Dogs deliberately bred for specific purposes need to be selected from parents talented for those purposes. This includes breeding dogs to be pets. One selects for a loving pet personality as well as general health and vigor in order to have puppies that will be successful as pets and companions. This is why the parents of dogs bred to be pets and companions need to be integrated into a home where their ability to function as pets and companions can be observed.

Especially with small-breed dogs, dogs that are kept crated as breeding stock all their lives have never been "tested" in the pet and companion venue. Could they be house trained? Will they be comfortable with visitors? Will they be trustworthy with children? Will they easily allow you to groom them and care for them? Who knows if all that was experienced by generations of their ancestors was sitting in a small cage.

Bonnie Dalzell, MA

mail: 5100 Hydes Rd PO Box 60, Hydes, MD,USA 21082-0060

EMAIL:bdalzell@qis.net

Freelance anatomist, vertebrate paleontologist, writer, illustrator, dog
breeder, computer nerd & iconoclast…

Borzoi info at www.borzois.com

http://www.batw.net

http://dogdimension.org/dokuwiki/doku.php

A PETA Petition

2011-09-30T22:40:00.000-07:00

PETA is using the White House petition website in an attempt to push their radical "no more pets" legislative agenda. Nearly 10,000 people have signed their petition, (including over 5,000 signatures in the first 24 hours) which calls for a nationwide mandate that all dogs and cats be sterilized!

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/stop-animal-homelessness-its-roots/kxBLFMx8

Well, since PETA kills over 94% of the dogs and cats that they claim to "save" I guess it's not surprising that they are proposing a nationwide pet extinction bill. Bob Barker, the unqualified simpleton celebrity "expert", is also acting as the mouthpiece to popularize this horrific idea.

Pet "overpopulation" has been thoroughly debunked, and without breeders, there would be no pets in the future. None at all!! Breeding of dogs and cats has been a time-honored pastime for thousands of years. Not to mention, the vast majority of owned pets are already sterilized.

Yet animal extremists have managed to deliver a black eye to those people who love animals and enjoy pet stewardship and breeding. The real problem in our nation that needs to be addressed is not some phony-baloney "overpopulation", but a very real crisis of shelter mismanagement. For some reason, we have people in charge of shelters who relish killing animals rather than having the vision and dedication to save them.

Let's hope people wake up to the animal rights agenda of eliminating animals from our life before the damage is irreparable.

More info from US Sportsmen's Alliance:
http://www.ussportsmen.org/page.aspx?pid=2863

Animal Ownership Petition

2011-09-27T13:55:00.000-07:00

In recognition of the fact that animal rights groups like HSUS and PETA are devoted to limiting pet ownership in our country by any means possible, including subterfuge, lies and animal enterprise terrorism, we the people, the vast nation of animal owners, wish for the truth to be exposed.

Be it known that:

• Animal rights extremists have claimed that "not enough homes" exist for pets. There are 23 million homes for pets opening up each year in the USA, and between 3-4 million animals killed in shelters. We have a failure of shelter leadership and management.

• Shelter killings are only justified in cases of illness, infirmity, severe injury, or owner-requested euthanasia. No adoptable animal need ever be killed.

• Pet lovers across the land are appalled that this killing continues when there is no reason for it.

• The latest national pet owner survey reveals that 78% of all owned dogs and 88% of all owned cats are already spayed or neutered.

• Mandated sterilization results in increases in shelter intakes and deaths everywhere it has been tried.

Shelters and rescues import hundreds of thousands of dogs into the US each year, and many more are smuggled in to meet the current demand for pets.

Be it further resolved:

• ANIMALS, including dogs, cats and other pets are property. The Government should recognize the inherent right to property as specified in the US Constitution.

• The government shall set no limit on our right to own animals excepting local nuisance ordinances.

• No restriction shall be set on the numbers of animals owned or the animal husbandry methods employed by animal owners beyond basic health, sanitation and rabies control.

• No adoptable dogs or cats in animal shelter should be killed. Animal control agencies must fulfill their duties to seek out homes or rescue group placement for all such adoptable animals, and to trap, neuter and release feral, unadoptable cats.

• The reproductive rights for our animals rests with owners and the government shall not interfere with those rights.

Proposal: a federal law prohibiting limitation on ownership of animals as personal property; nor shall any animal ownership regulation be imposed that does not directly affect human health nor violate existing animal welfare laws.

Huffington Post - Puppet for the Animal Rights Extremist Agenda

2011-09-25T18:39:00.000-07:00

Popular News Agency Reports Unsubstantiated Assertions Designed to Restrict Pet Ownership

Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary, California Federation of Dog Clubs

Legislative Liaison, American Pomeranian Club
Carole Raschella, Director
California Federation of Dog Clubs

The Huffington Post recently ran an article by Joanna Zelman entitled: "PETA And Bob Barker Call For Spay/Neuter Law To Fight Animal Overpopulation".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/peta-bob-barker-spay-neuter-pets_n_977032.html

This article is filled with many errors and misperceptions from celebrities who really do not have facts or logic on their side. Let's correct some of these urban legends right here and now.

SPAY-NEUTER AND SHELTER INTAKES

There is an assumption by the article author that mandatory spay and neuter laws work to decrease the number of shelter intakes, and thus reduce killings. In fact, the opposite is true. Every locale that has enacted a mandatory spay and neuter law has seen a RISE in shelter admissions and killings. Fort Worth, Texas repealed their mandatory spay and neuter law as licensing and compliance plummeted, and cases of rabies increased.

Memphis passed a mandatory spay and neuter law last year. Since then, shelter intakes have risen 8% in that city.

Los Angeles is another case in point. After decades of steadily declining shelter numbers, LA reversed the good trend in one fell swoop with enactment of a mandatory spay and neuter law. Intakes and deaths immediately rose by over 30% and continue in an upward spiral. (1)

No mainstream animal welfare organization supports mandatory spay and neuter. The AVMA opposes it. So does the ASPCA, Best Friends Animal Shelter, American Humane Association, Ally Cat Allies and the No Kill Advocacy Center. They know what the Huffington Post should have also discovered, had they done their due diligence - that punitive legislation increases shelter admissions and deaths.

The American College of Theriogenologists is composed of veterinarians who specialize in reproductive medicine. They also have studied the issues and oppose mandatory spay and neuter. The ACT notes:

"....the decision to spay or neuter a pet must be made on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the pet's age, breed, sex, intended use, household environment and temperament. The use of generalized rules concerning gonadectomy (removal of the ovaries or testes) is not in the best interest of the health or well-being of the pets or their owners."

"In fact, in some European Union countries where gonadectomy is illegal unless deemed medically necessary (such as Norway) there are no significant problems with pet overpopulation, indicating that the pet overpopulation problem that exists in the United States is due to cultural differences on the importance of pets, the responsibility of pet owners, and the ability of the government and national agencies to properly educate the public. "

All the experts who have examined the issue (not actors who don't have a clue about the truth) are opposed to mandatory spay and neuter because it increases shelter intakes and death. But, why wouldn't spay and neuter be in the best interest of the health an well-being of the pet, as stated by ACT?

SPAY-NEUTER AND HEALTH

In fact, there are few benefits, and many health risks associated with surgical removal of the sex organs. The American Veterinary Medical Association admits to some seldom-mentioned problems with sterilization in this journal article:

"....potential health problems associated with spaying and neutering have also been identified, including an increased risk of prostatic cancer in males; increased risks of bone cancer and hip dysplasia in large-breed dogs associated with sterilization before maturity; and increased incidences of obesity, diabetes, urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, and hypothyroidism." (2)

In 2007, in an attempt to verify previous scientific testing regarding negative health effects resulting from spay-neuter, yet another study was done on the effects of neutering on the male urogenital tract. The results were shocking.

Neutered dogs were four times more likely to suffer from malignant bladder cancer than intact dogs. Neutered dogs were eight times more likely to suffer from prostate transitional cell carcinoma than intact dogs. They were twice as likely to suffer from prostate adenocarcinoma, and four times as likely to suffer from prostate carcinoma. On average, castrated dogs are three times more likely than their intact counterparts to develop some type of prostate cancer. (3)

But specific health problems are not the most serious concern when it comes to sterilization surgery. In a recent study reported in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, female Rottweilers spayed after the age of six years old (or never spayed) lived on average 30% longer than spayed dogs. (4)

In a nutshell, you could have many more years with your dog simply by avoiding unnecessary spay surgery. The only medical indications for spay surgery are treatment of pyometra when it occurs, and prevention of breast cancer in breeds that are genetically predisposed. These problems affect a relatively small number of dogs. Bottom line, spaying is a decision best left to the owner after weighing the risks vs benefits of the procedure.

The government has no moral, ethical or medical justification to mandate spay/neuter surgeries. Sterilization can jeopardize good health and can shorten the dog's lifespan. Such nanny laws violate our rights to make our own decisions regarding our animals. Who likes being forced by our lawmakers to spend hundreds of dollars on surgery that is unnecessary, and that can be harmful to our animal's health? No one.

SPAY-NEUTER IS PART OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS AGENDA OF PET ELIMINATION

And then, we have to deal with the issue of the radical animal rights groups like PETA. Who out there is still foolish enough to listen to PETA? PETA claims to love animals, but their actions betray their hypocrisy. PETA kills animals. They killed over 94% of the animals they took into their Virginia "shelter" in 2010, even while other shelters in the area have excellent save rates. (5)

PETA's employees were convicted of picking up dogs and cats from local veterinarian's offices and shelters, promising to find them homes, but instead killing them in the van within a few minutes, and then dumping the bodies in various regional dumpsters. These poor animals never even made it out of PETA's pickup van alive! (6)

Elimination of pet breeding a stated goal of Animal Rights groups, as per their twelve-step convention platform. This platform was printed in "Animals' Agenda" magazine in November, 1987 in an article entitled "Politics of Animal Liberation" by Kim Bartlett. Item #10 states:

We strongly discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or purebred dogs and cats. Spay and neuter clinics should be subsidized by state and municipal governments. Commerce in domestic and exotic animals for the pet trade should be abolished.

Are things becoming a bit clearer now? The animal rights groups have admitted upfront their agenda to end the pet trade. And the aggressive push for spay/neuter, sales bans and over-regulation of breeding is all part of that agenda to end pet ownership. It's a goal they have been progressing for the past 30 years. And claims of "abuse" and "overpopulation" are tools used to achieve that end.

We need to preserve the gene pools of our breeds of dogs and cats if we expect to have pets in the future. We all want to have pets a few years down the road, don't we?

Well, most of us do, but not PETA and other radical animal rights groups. PETA's Ingrid Newkirk has stated:

"In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether."

and

"If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind."

So PETA would be happy if pets went extinct, but I doubt that it would be OK with the 2/3 of the households in the US who enjoy having pets to enrich our lives.

Pet Population Problems are Grossly Exaggerated

The number of animals killed in shelters needs to be viewed in perspective. Let's look at some REAL facts and figures.

According to the 2011-2012 nationwide survey conducted by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, there are 165 million owned animals in the US. The numbers killed in shelters, an estimated 3-4 million, is less than 2% of the total number of all owned animals in the US.

And those killed are not all OWNED animals. There is a large population of unowned feral cats in the US. Nationwide, over half the shelter intakes are feral cats and their kittens. These should be trapped, neutered and released, not killed.

Considering that there are probably countless millions of feral cats out there to add to the total numbers of owned dogs and cats in the US, the percentage of those killed in shelters is minuscule. By the way, feral cats are not going to line up to comply with the law and be sterilized. Spay-neuter laws won't affect their numbers one whit.

Next, a goodly percentage of those animals who are killed are aged, ill, injured, aggressive, or brought in for owner-requested euthanasia. Another fun fact: In California in 2010, a full 11% of animals listed as shelter intakes were DOA. Yet these already-dead animals count as shelter intakes.

The APPMA survey further informs us that a full 78% of owned dogs are ALREADY spayed or neutered, and a whopping 88% of all owned cats are also spayed or neutered. So where are all these dogs and cats that need to be forcibly neutered?

They exist solely in the overactive imagination.

ANIMAL ABUSE IN OTHER COUNTRIES - PET IMPORTATION INTO THE USA

David Duchovny is quoted as saying that other countries "control stray dog populations by poisoning, hanging, throat slitting, beating to death, electrocution, and shooting."

What do Mr. Duchovny's statements about the inhumane treatment of dogs in other countries have to do with the conditions of dogs living right here? Absolutely nothing.

Abuse of animals is a separate issue from pet population control issues. Correlating animal abuse with population issues is a common logical fallacy. If there is any relationship, it is one of the US supporting abuse in other countries. US rescue groups import animals from these other, less humane, countries on a regular basis.

Why? Because we have a SHORTAGE of adoptable animals here in the continental US. Check out the websites of such groups as "Compassion Without Borders", "Save a Sato", "Dogs Without Borders", "Animal Rescue Team Taiwan","Pets From Paradise" and many others. By importing from areas with purported abuse, we only perpetuate the cycle of animals raised under poor conditions.

According to the illogic presented in the Huffington Post article, it's not OK to breed our animals here in the US under regulated and humane conditions, but it is fine to import them from other countries, when they are bred under unknown, possibly abusive conditions? There have been so many instances of dogs imported by "rescues" exposing US citizens and animals to rabies and other problems that the USDA is currently writing regulations on the importation of puppies.

All in all, over 300,000 dogs are estimated to be imported each year (7), and even more are smuggled into the country illegally. (8)

Shelters in the New England states have to import dogs because they don't have enough to fill the demand. "North Shore Animal League" has made this into a full-time business. There are tens of thousands of dogs being imported to fill New England shelters that would otherwise be empty. And now, the New England Federation of Humane Societies recently held a conference in Maine.
One of the topics for discussion was:

"New England is Running Out of Kittens! Discussion of kitten importation and how we can get ahead of the issue." Facilitated by Bert Troughton, ASPCA (9)

I guess that pretty well blows the assertion out of the water about one cat producing 420,000 kittens. All New England would need would be one lone cat to supply them with all the kittens they would ever need.

THE TRUTH ABOUT PET "OVERPOPULATION"

Why the need to relocate and import dogs and cats? After all we have "overpopulation", right?

WRONG. The facts and figures paint a different picture.

Acording to shelter statistics recently assembled, there are approximately 3 million dogs and cats killed each year. Acording to shelter expert Nathan Winograd:

"How many need to find new homes? If shelters are doing their jobs comprehensively, just over 2 million (3 million on the high end). The remainder should be increased reclaims or in the case of feral cats, TNR'd." (trapped, neutered and released)

Winograd recounts that there are 23 million homes opening up each year for dogs and cats. Four million homes will adopt a shelter pet. Another 17 million have not decided where they will obtain their new pet, and could be influenced to adopt from a shelter.

"So, 17 million people for 2-3 million dogs and cats. Has this happened anywhere? Yes, there are many communities which have hit the 90th percentile in save rates. How long did it take them? They did it virtually overnight when new leadership committed to the No Kill philosophy and passionate about saving lives replaced long standing bureaucrats mired in defeatism and excuse making." (10)

So yes, Ms. Gauld, we CAN adopt our way out of this. We already have. We have a shortage of pets. Maybe someone needs to speak up and say, enough with the sales bans and the spay-neuter rhetoric. It's time to start breeding some nice animals before all we have left is street strays from distant lands where abuse is rampant. Do we really want to support the system of abuse in other countries as detailed by Mr. Duchovny?

The statement that breeding causes shelter animals to be killed is absurd. It makes about as much sense as saying that no one should have a baby as long as there are homeless people on the streets, or kids in orphanages. The logic is the same as that which our mothers used when they implored us to eat our peas, because there are starving children in other countries. Such statements are light on logic and heavy on guilt.

Again, why is anyone listening to the hypocrites over at PETA? Mandatory spay and neuter does not save lives; in fact, such mandates shorten the lives of our animals and cause increases in shelter intakes and deaths. (11) Perhaps a new law requiring celebrities to be muzzled in public would be more beneficial to society.

Our animals pay with their lives for these anti-animal spay-neuter laws.

The Price is WRONG, Bob.

(1) http://www.cfodconline.org/MSNFailures.htm

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

(3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17516571

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

(5) www.petakillsanimals.com

(6) http://petakillsanimals.com/news.cfm

(7) http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3765973&page=1

(8) http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/662872

(9) https://nefhs-conference.org/event/schedule

(10) http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=1390

(11) http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf

The "Overpopulation" rhetoric continues....

2011-09-11T14:48:00.000-07:00

Response to another article today that quotes inaccurate and misleading information from HSUS on purported pet "overpopulation":

The HSUS is NOT a reliable authority when it comes to pet welfare issues. They have a stated animal rights agenda and are not supportive of animal ownership. HSUS urges shelters to kill animals as soon as any mandatory holding period expires. HSUS lobbied against no-kill legislation in California and Texas. They urged the judge in the Vick case to kill all the dogs, even the puppies! Luckily, the judge did not listen and those dogs have been successfully re-homed. If that wasn’t enough, HSUS embraced Michael Vick; a man who brutally tortured, electrocuted, and drowned numerous dogs, who threw his “pets” into a fighting ring to be torn to bits….the HSUS thinks Vick should be allowed to own a pet, and have partnered up with him and used him in their fundraising efforts. DISGUSTING.

Pet “overpopulation” is a thing of the past. In fact, it was known as long ago as 1990 that the pendulum was swinging the other direction. In 1973, 20% of the pet population was killed in shelters. By 1990, that number had dropped to 4.5%, and as of surveys from 2010 and later, less than 2% of the pet population is killed in shelters. Many of those who are killed are irremediably ill, seriously injured, or brought into the shelter specifically for humane euthanasia. (1)

There are 21 million homes for pets opening up each and every year. These homes could easily absorb the estimated 3-4 million adoptable pets that the shelters instead CHOOSE to kill. Shelter managers need to do a better job of getting the pets to the people who would adopt them. (2)

In fact, many rescues import dogs from other countries, because so many shelters in the US do not have enough adoptable dogs to go around. (3)

And let’s put a stop to the mantra of spay-neuter everything that moves. In most other countries (for example the European nations), spay-neuter is rarely done unless medically necessary, and they don’t have rampant “overpopulation”. Regardless, in the US today, over 78% of all owned dogs and over 88% of all owned cats are already spayed or neutered. (4)

Sterilization has many adverse health effects, including increased risk of many types of cancers. It exponentially increases the risk of osteosarcoma, which is extremely painful and invariably fatal. Sterilization greatly increases the risk of incontinence in females, bladder and prostate cancer in males, hypothyroidism, increased susceptibility to vaccine reactions; it increases noise phobias, fearfulness, and aggression toward humans. (5)

But perhaps the most sobering study from 2011 showed that females who kept their ovaries to the age of six years or later, or those who were never spayed, lived, on average, about 30% longer than those spayed at an earlier age. (6) You could have several more years with your female dog simply by keeping her intact. The one exception to this would be in breeds where there is a genetic predisposition to breast cancer. In those cases, early spay can be helpful to prevent breast cancer.

So let's stop repeating the silly notions that we have an overpopulation of pets and that we need to spay and neuter more. Both these theories have been disproven in numerous recent studies.

Referenced article:
http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/technology/earth/whats-the-latest-on-the-pet-overpopulation-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-52125

(1) Pet UNderpopulation”: http://www.spanieljournal.com/33lbaughan.html
(2) Debunking Pet Overpopulation: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=1390
(3) “It’s Raining Dogs…From Other Countries”. http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/2011/03/its-raining-dogsfrom-other-countries.html
(4) Source: American Pet Products Association 2011-2012 National Pet Owners Survey).
(5) http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longtermhealtheffectsofspayneuterindogs.pdf
(6)Rottweiler Study Links Ovaries With Exceptional Longevity. JAVMA article March 2010 http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar10/100301g.asp

"Why Dogs Die Young"

2011-09-07T16:15:00.001-07:00

Dr. Karen Becker interviews Ted Kerasote regarding his book "Why Dogs Die Young". Some excerpts from the interview...

Ted had seen some data that indicated dogs in Europe tend to live about a year longer than dogs in this country....But European dogs do receive fewer vaccinations. Rabies has been essentially eradicated in Western Europe, so dogs that don't travel aren't required to get rabies vaccines.

Ted goes on to explain that probably the biggest difference between how dogs in Europe are raised versus dogs in the U.S. is, Europe doesn't spay or neuter at nearly the rate we do in North America....sterilization seems to have a significant impact on both the endocrine and immune systems of dogs.

So Ted went on to research the effectiveness of U.S. shelter operations. He wanted to know why we're still euthanizing an estimated two millions dogs each year. What are the key factors?

Ted talked to a lot of people in shelter leadership positions, and it seems the problem is becoming more one of supply and demand rather than that no one wants those two million homeless dogs. It's more a problem these days of connecting people with the dogs they want – getting the right dogs to the right shelters for the people who want to adopt them.

Dr. Becker goes on to comment: I worked at a kill shelter as a younger person, and we firmly believed owners who didn't spay or neuter were simply uneducated. And I could do enough talking as an employee of the shelter to convince people they must spay or neuter. At that point in my life, I believed pet owners couldn't necessarily be trusted to know what to do, and I also believed dogs were healthier if they were spayed or neutered.

These days, I have to re-educate a lot of my clients … after I apologize. I've cried many tears in my exam room as I apologized for creating some endocrine-related disease or other by insisting a pet be spayed or neutered, many of them before puberty.

I just didn't know then what I know now. And it saddens me.

Ted reveals that another cultural dynamic he sees operating here is in regard to breeding dogs.

Ted's response is, 'If you carry that line of thinking to its logical conclusion, there are no more dogs.'

To alter every dog sounds crazy to Ted. It also takes a lot of genetically healthy dogs out of the population.

Ted feels what spay/neuter has done in the shelter population is what narrowing the funnel of purebred dogs to those with exaggerated anatomical features has done in the purebred population.

Ted doesn't believe people are thinking through the issue of long-term canine health when they take the approach to 'Spay and neuter everyone.'

http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2011/09/06/one-two-possible-reasons-dogs-live-longer-in-europe.aspx

Let the message spread throughout the land! Amen, hallelujah!

Children's "puppy mill" book

2011-09-07T13:21:00.001-07:00

The animal rights fanatics have worked long and hard to paint the image of dog breeding as abusive. Meet the next step in that process, brainwashing our children. Coming soon to a school library near you!

The POOR mothers, being forced to breed and raise puppies. We simply MUST rescue them! Those EEVIL breeders discard their older, retired females to go to new homes....how heartless they are! Thank goodness I became a "real dog". "Real dogs" never have puppies, do they? Of course not!

Animal rights kooks have admitted that they would rather see people on welfare instead of breeding dogs. They've made the act of running a small kennel so you can work from home now as morally objectionable as armed robbery or running a meth lab.

And now they have their very own book.

Kids Are Never to Young to Learn Empathy for Animals!

Dear friend,

Happy Tails Books has never before published a children's book because, well, we don't have children! So when Frances Smith, a teacher, came to use with a manuscript and photos for a children's picture book, we jumped at the chance to help her.

How I Became a Real Dog: A Picture Book, is "written" by Phoebe, Frances' adopted puppy mill survivor. The book chronicles the details of Phoebe's life as a mill momma and her subsequent release in words that children can understand, with pictures that are intended to teach children the reality of puppy mills and the proper care of dogs without scaring them.

We highly recommend this book as a gift for any children in your life. It's a positive "gateway" to animal advocacy and empathy for dogs who have suffered because of puppy mills.

Price: $14.95

Pages: 28 color

Ages: Approx. 6 - 10 years old

This month only, get $2 off per order.

Coupon code: realdog9

Thank you for supporting animal advocacy!

Kyla Duffy

President, Happy Tails Books

"Eternal Home Again" Microchips

2011-08-20T18:48:00.000-07:00

"Professional" microchip insertion at a clinic

Microchip ID has been widely touted for use in recovery of lost pets and facilitating returns to owner. Since our pets can’t give a phone number or address when they are lost, no doubt microchips can be very advantageous. I choose to have my dogs microchipped.

However, the State of California wishes to remove that choice from us. Los Angeles already has a mandatory microchip law on the books, enacted based on promises from the “Found Animals Foundation” to provide the city with millions of dollars worth of microchips. Shelters in many areas routinely microchip animals prior to adoption. And now the legislature is advancing a bill (SB 702) which mandates microchipping of all animals released from shelters. The owner or prospective owner would have no choice in the matter.

Since the cost of the microchip will be borne by the owner, this will probably result in higher adoption/impound fees. For at least some pets, this will reduce the chances of being adopted or reclaimed.

A microchip can be a wonderful tool, but they are not without pitfalls. There have been rare instances of microchip insertion resulting in illness and death. Dogs have bled to death after insertion and suffered from infecton at the insertion site. Some have had the chip inserted improperly into muscle tissue or even the spinal canal, and there are even instances of lethal cancer formation at microchip sites. (See articles linked below). Chips can migrate in the body or fail, rendering them useless. Microchips also vary considerably by manufacturer and there is no universal scanner at this time.

Other forms of identification such as tattoos or tags can be immediately read by anyone who finds a stray dog, allowing rapid return to owner and reducing the burden on local shelters. Animal welfare groups such as AKC and OFA consider tattoos to be an acceptable form of permanent ID. Freeze branding is also an option worth considering.

Information on a microchip may not always be updated upon transfer of ownership. If there is increased reliance on microchip without another form of ID, the result may be the death of a beloved pet who could have survived with the use of a more visible form of ID.

Animals who are stolen will most likely never be scanned, rendering a microchip uselss in such situations. The thief can even have the microchip surgically removed. This is another instance where a more visible form of ID like a tattoo might be more useful than a microchip.

In regard to microchipping, the American Veterinary Medical association states on their website:

"As with almost anything, it's not a foolproof system. Although it's very rare, microchips can fail and become unable to be detected by a scanner. Problems with the scanners are also not common, but can occur. Human error, such as improper scanning technique or incomplete scanning of an animal, can also lead to failure to detect a microchip. Some of the animal-related factors that can make it difficult to detect a microchip include the following: animals that won't stay still or struggle too much while being scanned; the presence of long, matted hair at or near the microchip implantation site; and a metal collar (or a collar with a lot of metal on it). All of these can interfere with the scanning and detection of the microchip."

The AVMA further states on this same page:

"It looks like a simple-enough procedure to implant a microchip – after all, it's just like giving an injection, right? Well, yes and no. Although it looks like a simple injection, it is very important that the microchip is implanted properly. Using too much force, placing the needle too deeply, or placing it in the wrong location can not only make it difficult to detect or read the microchip in the future, but it can also cause life-threatening problems. Microchips should really be implanted under supervision by a veterinarian, because veterinarians know where the microchips should be placed, know how to place them, and know how to recognize the signs of a problem and treat one if it occurs."

Yet, in Rebecca May’s bill analysis for SB 702 from July 8, there are reassuring statements made regarding microchip safety. Ms. May asserts "The material is inert and biocompatible, thereby there is no health risk to the animal from the insertion of the microchip. Also, implanting the device is similar to that of a vaccination, resulting in minimal pain for the animal - and can be implanted by veterinary techs and other personnel."

The statement that "there is no health risk to the animal from the insertion of the microchip" is patently false. And the AVMA seems to feel that veterinarians should be there to at least supervise the insertion, in light of the complications that may occur.

Here are two documented cases of the microchip being implanted in the spinal canal. One is dated 2009 and the other case is dated 2010.

Who is responsible if the microchip is placed in the spinal canal? Will it now be the State?

Case 1:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19151873

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2009;22(1):63-5.

Surgical removal of a microchip from a puppy's spinal canal.

"A 1.6 kg, six-week-old Tibetan Terrier was admitted with a 12-hours
history of acute onset of progressive tetraparesis following insertion of
a microchip to the dorsal cervical region. Neurological examination
indicated a lesion to the Ce(1) to Ce(5) spinal cord segments.
Radiographic examination confirmed the intra-spinal location of a
microchip foreign body at the level of the second cervical vertebra.
Microchip removal was achieved following dorsal hemi-laminectomy;
significant intra-operative haemorrhage was encountered. The puppy was
ambulatory at day seven. Follow-up telephone interview 18 months
postoperatively confirmed that the patient had made a good recovery
although it had a mild residual right- sided torticollis."

Case 2:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20422127

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2010;23(3):213-7. Epub 2010 Apr 26.

Delayed spinal cord injury following microchip placement in a dog.

"A three-year-old female, entire Yorkshire Terrier dog was examined because
it had progressive non-weight-bearing left forelimb lameness and
tetraparesis of two weeks duration. Clinical signs were first observed
following mating. Examination confirmed non-weight-bearing left forelimb
lameness and tetraparesis. Left forelimb muscle atrophy was also noticed.
Survey radiography revealed a metallic foreign body consistent with a
microchip in close proximity to the left articular facets between the
fifth and sixth cervical vertebrae. Computed tomography identified the
exact location of the foreign body encroaching on the left dorsolateral
vertebral canal, and osteolysis of the lamina of the sixth cervical
vertebra. Surgical removal of the foreign body was performed via a dorsal
approach to the caudal cervical vertebral column. Two weeks following
surgery the dog showed return of left forelimb function and resolving
tetraparesis. Microchip implantation had been performed three years
previously."

Risks from microchips are rare, but problems do occur. Microchip insertion should be a personal choice and an individual decision, based upon weighing the risk vs benefit. Such a procedure should not be mandated by the state.

For further information:

"Implants Linked to Animal Tumors"
Todd Lewan, A.P.
September 8, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090800997_pf.html

"Chipped Pets Develop Fast-Growing, Lethal Tumors
http://www.antichips.com/press-releases/chipped-pets.html

The Scientific Evidence
http://www.chipmenot.org/scientificevidence.htm

Case Histories
http://www.chipmenot.org/casehistories.htm

CASPIAN Releases Microchip Cancer Report
http://www.chroniclewatch.com/2011/05/18/caspian-releases-microchip-cancer-report/

A Cancer Specialist questions early spay-neuter

2011-08-20T15:58:00.000-07:00

Vets are finally noticing the overwhelming evidence regarding the adverse health effects of sterilization, particularly early sterilization. Attitudes are slowly changing. Hopefully the mantra of "overpopulation" will soon begin to crumble away also.
From the Mercola website:

http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2011/02/17/dangers-of-early-pet-spaying-or-neutering.aspx

A very legitimate concern, pet overpopulation, has been the primary driving force behind 30 years of national and local spay/neuter campaigns.

When it comes to deciding at what age a companion animal should be sterilized, the standard for most spay/neuter campaigns has been sooner rather than later. This is especially true in the case of adoptable abandoned and rescued pets that wind up in shelters and foster care.

Recently, however, some animal health care experts have begun to question whether early sterilization is a good idea for every pet.

Dr. Alice Villalobos, a well-known pioneer in the field of cancer care for companion animals, asks the question:

"But what if large-scale studies found that early neutering jeopardizes the health of our pets?"

"What if we found enough epidemiological evidence that early neutering of pet dogs may open them to orthopedic, behavioral, immunologic and oncologic issues?"

Back in 1977, Dr. Villalobos founded a rescue organization called the Peter Zippi Fund for Animals, which has to date rescued and re-homed nearly 12,000 pets. Her organization was one of thousands that looked at the tragic situation in U.S. shelters and determined early spay/neuter was the best way to lessen the suffering and ultimate euthanasia of so many feral and abandoned animals.

As a veterinary oncologist and founder of the pet hospice program Pawspice, Dr. Villalobos concedes, "It is earth shattering to consider that some of the cancers we have been battling may have been enhanced by early neutering instead of the reverse."

Sources:

Veterinary Practice News

CanineSports.com

Buyer Beware

2011-08-13T19:22:00.000-07:00

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.

The Russian Roulette Diet

2011-08-10T19:15:00.000-07:00

Having done extensive research on canine nutrition, I noted with interest Caroline Coile's article "How Would You Like That Cooked?" in the August issue of the AKC Gazette. However, eager anticipation soon gave way to disappointment as I realized that the article included flawed studies and reasoning commonly spouted by the staunchest critics of raw diets. There was some valid information, but the poor data predominated.

A study was cited that found that cats fed frozen raw rabbit developed taurine deficiency, while those fed a commercial kibble did not. There are several problems with this study. First, it only included cats with malabsorption issues. It is well known from human studies that highly refined and processed foods are more easily digested by those with malabsorptive digestive disorders. It is possible that the underlying health condition caused the difficulty with taurine absorption, and not the food itself. A commercial food is, in effect, "predigested" by being highly processed, a situation that may be beneficial for animals with malabsorption problems.

A diet consisting exclusively of rabbit is not advisable because taurine levels in rabbit are much lower than other meats. A 2003 UC Davis lab study tabulated taurine content in various meats fed to pets:

Whole rabbit carcass ....... 373 (+/- 399) mg taurine per kilogram wet weight
Chicken dark meat.......... 1690 (+/- 370) mg taurine per kilogram wet weight
Turkey dark meat .......... 3960 (+/- 690) mg taurine per kilogram wet weight
clams fresh ................. 2400mg taurine per kilogram wet weight

So if the kibble-fed cats had a diet that included other meats that just rabbit, and was supplemented with powdered taurine as well, they of course were not as prone to develop taurine deficiency as those fed rabbit exclusively. The act of freezing may be a consideration too. It is possible that freezing may destroy taurine, just as high heat cooking does. Grinding also destroys taurine.

And, we might need to remind ourselves, cats are not dogs. Dogs can produce at least some taurine from other amino acids, while cats cannot.

The take home message from this study is that frozen, ground raw rabbit should not comprise the sole diet for months on end of cats with malabsorption problems. That's it! This is even more evidence of the need for variety in the diet.

Then, a large portion of the artice was devoted to bacterial contamination of food. That section highlighted concerns about salmonella. It is interesting to note that a large percentage of all dogs carry salmonella, regardless of diet. The AVMA admits that, based on studies done on kibble-fed dogs, a full 36% carry salmonella in their GI tracts. Salmonella can be transmitted to dogs from humans, and salmonella is also, incidentally, transmitted to humans from other humans, not just by food or kisses from a pet. Salmonella is in the environment, and is a natural part of life for our pets, and for us too. Naturally, it can be a concern for the immunocompromised.

However, commercial dried foods have been recalled for salmonella contamination frequently; more often than raw diets. Once a food is processed at high heat, all microbes, both good and bad, are killed. This leaves the resultant meal in effect a petri dish, ready to be overrun by the first disease-causing micro-organism the food comes in contact with after processing. There no longer are beneficial bacteria in the food to help keep disease-causing organisms in check.

I would be interested to see the 2009 study the article refers to, that claims NO pathogens in the stools of kibble-fed dogs. I would be very skeptical of such results. I have seen multiple other studies out of University of Guelph, cited as part of an agenda to ban therapy dogs from partaking of a raw diet. However, studies used as "evidence" have been either statistically insignificant due to small numbers, or did not include a group of dogs fed kibble. In the studies with large numbers of participating dogs, most all of them have done a great job of highlighting the bacteria in the stool of raw fed dogs while ignoring the significant amount of pathogens in the stool of kibble-fed dogs. In most studies, the amount of pathogens is comparable and for some pathogens (such as C. difficile and MRSA) the rates are significantly HIGHER in kibble-fed dogs.

The article seems to attempt to justify use of highly processed "sterilized" commercial pet food by highlighting overblown salmonella risks. If the risk of transmission of salmonella varied with diet, then health care personnel would be ordered to not to eat peanut butter, almonds, eggs, mayonnaise, a rare-cooked burger, strawberries, or any of the other foods that have been found to carry salmonella.

An example of a raw diet included in Ms. Coile's article involved the practice of feeding racing greyhounds inferior foods. It should go without saying that when feeding a home-made diet, the ingredients should be fresh; not stale, rotting or rancid. Concerns about parasites are certainly valid, and the reason that even most raw feeding advocates do not recommend feeding of raw fish or raw game animals. Deep freezing can also help reduce the risk of parasites.

Ms. Coile's article pointed to studies that analyzed home-prepared recipes, claiming they were "unbalanced". This thought process is also flawed, as home-prepared diets are based on the concept of variety rather than eating the same, homogenized recipe each and every day. You do not need "balance" in each bite. What is needed is balance over time. This wrong-headed thinking about balance needed in each bite comes from the habit of opening a bag and pouring out the same dry formula every day, day after day.

A diet made of shredded shoe leather, motor oil and ground coal could also pass AAFCO certification as "complete and balanced". Still, it's certainly not something I'd like to feed my pet.

In this article, much ado was made of nutrient deficiency or excess in home prepared diets, but nothing is mentioned about the multitude of deaths and recalls related to the use of "balanced" commercial foods. These foods can be dangerously "imbalanced" and it is a most serious situation when the naive consumer buys and feeds one food exclusively, trusting it to be "complete and balanced".

Vitamins and minerals have to be supplemented in commercial diets due to the poor quality and overprocessing of the ingredients used. When measurements are off, the results can be deadly. Many deaths and recalls have resulted due to thiamine deficiency, the most recent in 2011 by Wellness brand. In 2006, Mars' Royal Canin brand was recalled due to massive overdosing of Vitamin D. Other vitamins and minerals have been problematic over the years in commercial "balanced" diets, including zinc, calcium, and Vitamin A. Then there are the hazards of incidental ingredients such as fluoride in rock phospate, an ingredient included in almost all pet foods to provide minerals. We also find potential carcinogenic preservatives and even drugs like pentobarbital and tylenol in some commercial pet foods.

You can be certain of three things: death, taxes and future recalls for mycotoxins in pet foods. Recalls for deadly aflatoxicosis and vomitoxicosis are common; the risk for those is unavoidable in commercial foods where dry ingredients sit in warehouses prior to production, and then once manufactured, the food sits on a shelf for months prior to purchase. High levels of aflatoxins kill outright, but chronic, longterm consumption of low levels of aflatoxins (present in virtually ALL kibbles) eventually produces liver cancer.

Let's not forget the frequent recalls for metal shavings and pieces; as well as the horrific 2007 near-universal contamination with melamine and cyanuric acid which were INTENTIONALLY added to foods to make protein content look higher. I daresay such "ingredients" are just as risky (if not more risky) to dogs as any bone fragment in a raw diet ever was. Bones don't kill thousands of dogs in one fell swoop.

Commercial diets have killed countless dogs, yet we are left with the impression in the closing statement that "dogs are living longer than ever now on diets formulated for health."

Is there actual evidence that dogs really are living longer today, on average, than those who lived decades ago? And if so, is that attributable to diet or to other factors? Yes, many owners ARE feeding their pets higher quality foods today; and not necessarily just commercial, over-processed foods. But aside from that, fewer dogs are allowed to roam these days, reducing the possibility of accidental death which was the major cause of death "back in the day". There have been great advances in veterinary care, and more and more pet owners these days take their pets in for routine care and dental cleanings, thereby promoting a longer life. On the other side of the coin, some breeds suffer from genetic health problems that shorten lifespans, and these factors are unrelated to diet or quality of veterinary care. So please let's not jump to conclusions about lifespans based on nonexistent, faulty or incomplete evidence.

We need to quit relying on meals poured from a bag, and begin to use our common sense when feeding our animals. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to formulate a balanced diet for dogs; just a bit of information. Look for some of the many excellent canine diet resources available now. Lew Olson, a canine nutritionist, has a book out on raw and natural nutrition for dogs and has great articles on her website; http://www.b-naturals.com/

A good eye-opener to the perils of commercial canine cuisine is Ann Martin's book "Food Pets Die For". Another interesting book with good research is "See Spot Live Longer" by Steve Brown and Beth Taylor.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the AVMA, BVMA, and the CVMA may have opposition to a raw diet (as stated by Ms. Coile) not because of health concerns, but rather due to a conflict of interest brought about by the financial support these groups garner from the pet food industry. Perhaps the AKC and the "Gazette" have a similar conflict, considering the heavy advertising and financial support they accept from Purina and Eukanuba. I can think of no other reason for AKC to print such a biased and flawed article on diet for dogs in the "Gazette".

Feeding commercial kibble? You may well be playing "Russian Roulette" with your dog's life.

It's Just Another Meatless Monday.....

2011-08-08T21:32:00.000-07:00

"It's just another ~~manic~~ Meatless Monday.
I wish it were Sunday. 'Cause that's my Funday."

You're having a great weekend, tending your vegetable garden, bathing the dogs, spending a bit of time taking up arms against the animal rights extremists. Toss in some family funtime at the beach. And then, just when you take a deep breath after a nice weekend, and head back to work, you are hit with

MEATLESS MONDAY

in the cafeteria

Now I'm not saying I didn't enjoy that spaghetti squash casserole....it was delicious! but Oh Dear LORD! I felt like I really should have had a frontal lobotomy done before eating anything presented under such a theme.

The vegetarian/vegan agenda is relentlessly being pushed under the guise of "good health" and "better for the environment". Now it is even hitting the workplace cafeteria! The concept originated in the GRACE Spira Project at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. No, GRACE is not a lady. GRACE stands for "Global Resource Action Center for the Environment", an anti-agriculture project funded by animal extremists. "Spira" refers to Henry Spira, who is widely regarded as one of the most extreme animal rights fanatics of the 20^th century.

Not surprisingly, Meatless Monday is being promoted by the fanatic animal extremist group PETA. I guess they don't actually eat the thousands of animals they kill in their Virginia "shelter" every year. Bully for them!

Meatless Monday aims to reduce meat consumption worldwide by 15 percent. The organization’s Web site claims that going meatless once a week could not only reduce the risk of developing cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity, but would also reduce greenhouse gases and preserve natural resources such as fresh water and fossil fuel.

That seems just a tad far-fatched to me. We found when diabetics went onto the Atkins diet they did much better on meat and veggies instead of carbs. How does meatlessness preserve fresh water? If the animals are not eaten, do they drink less? Less meat eaten means more soybeans grown. Soybean fields need water. Plenty of water. And when did animals learn to use fossil fuels? Who knew! As to cancer, there has been no proven link between meat and cancer. That's just a bunch of tripe. Mmmmm. Menudo sounds pretty good right about now. I must be craving Vitamin B-12 after that vegetarian lunch.

“Meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests,” writes Mark Bittman in a New York Times article from 2008.

Meat factories? Meat can't be manufactured. Well, after all, it's the New York Times. We can't expect objective journalism from them. And, I don't believe for a moment that eating meat is destroying the rainforests. If people eat less meat and more grains and veggies, they'll need to cut down even MORE of the rainforest for crops. Quite a conundrum. A possible solution might be better birth control for humans?

Some vegetarians are not satisfied, however, simply to reject eating meat. They also believe that milk, eggs, leather, fur, and feathers are a product of cruelty to animals. They even oppose eating honey! Those poor oppressed bees, you know. Never mind the fact that bees work just as hard for their queen as they do for us. That doesn't matter at all! These no-animal-products-at-all type of vegetarians are known as "vegans". Vegans are not so much anti-cruelty as they are anti-human.

The reality is that veganism is not simply a choice related to health, fitness or the environment. It's actually a religious belief held dear by fanatic idealogues. The vegan religion proclaims that all animal products should be opposed on moral grounds. These are the same extremists who believe that animals are not ours to use in any way....THAT is the true ulterior motive in the promotion of veganism. Health and the enviroment are not REAL concerns, but manufactured ones intended to send the vegan agenda mainstream.

Even Nathan Winograd, the king of No Kill sheltering, has fallen prey to the mind-numbing mantra of meatlessness and veganism. I LOVE Nathan's No Kill pet sheltering methods, but I'm sorry to see that he has swallowed hook, line and sinker the animal rights nonsense regarding veganism. The guy even has a book out called "All American Vegan" and has blogged that he is an "ethical vegan" who raises his kids and dogs on a vegan diet.

So, if he is an "ethical vegan", wonder what the heck an "unethical vegan" would be? No, I don't think that is the meaning intended behind that phrase. Seems the not-so-subtle implication is that vegans are ethical while the rest of us are sinful, animal-abusing barbarians.

My mother should be so ashamed! Look what a terrible person she raised.

Not content to push the vegan diet on just humans, the HSUS markets a vegan dog food, based on soy. Figures they'd try to make even dogs into vegans. Seriously, feeding dogs or cats (carnivores) a vegan diet is abuse.
Dogs are carnivores and require complete proteins found in meat. Their digestive tract is not set up to extract proteins from vegetation, like herbivores. A vegan dog is a sick dog.

Human children also need animal products in their diet for proper growth and development. Animal products are the only source of vitamin B12 in the diet, a vitamin essential for proper brain and nervous system function. Well, you can try to include blue-green algae for the B12 content, but it is an unreliable source from what I understand. Not to mention, it tastes like shit.

I believe if God intended us to eat algae, we'd have been born with either fins or flippers.

There are more hazards involved with following a vegan diet. The other nutrients at risk for deficiency are riboflavin, calcium, iron, and the essential amino acids lysine and methionine. Vegan children not exposed to sufficient sunlight are at risk for vitamin D deficiency. Zinc deficiency can occur in vegans because the phytic acid in whole grains binds zinc, and there is little zinc in fruits and vegetables. Other risks of veganism are osteoporosis, rickets, iron-deficiency anemia, macrocytic anemia and poor growth in children. There was even a recent study published that shows that vegetarians have smaller brains than those who eat meat.

Winograd recommends a diet based heavily on soy. Without soy, vegetarians are at risk of protein deficiency. However, soy is extremely high in phytoestrogen content. If one chooses to forego animal products and eat a predominantly soy-based diet, then you can expect as a side effect some hormonal imbalances. Phytoestrogens that are so abundant in the popular vegan food soybeans (think tofu, including "tempeh", "tofurky" etc.) also cause thyroid, reproductive and liver problems.

Based on animal studies, soy also causes aggression, high cortisol levels, low tolerance to stress, neurodegenerative brain disease, and there is a strong suspicion that soy also can produce depression.

Most soy is also the genetically modified variety of crop. Let's not even attempt to go over that subject here. I'll let you do your own research on GMO foodstuffs. How many rainforests have been burned to make way for mass-produced, GMO soy? That's actually a big issue in current events. Look it up! Don't foget the pesticides they are sprayed with!

WHOA! I think the evidence is in. Meatlessness is certainly not healthier, nor is it in any way "greener" than a traditional diet. And we can conclude that moderation, variety, and a full spectrum of nutrients provided by foods, including animal products, is necessary for a balanced, healthy diet.

Nature evolved the food chain for a reason. That is the reality of life. Veganism is fantasyland thinking, like the bullshit anthropomorphism you see in the Disney movies.

What's next? Treeless Tuesday? Waterless Wednesday? Fat-Free Friday?

Maybe Disney's next film will feature teens hard at work promoting veganism, starting with Meatless Mondays in the school cafeteria. I'll take that lobotomy now, please. That'll make the whole vegan experience SOOO much easier to swallow.

More info on GRACE detailing the connection to PETA:
http://www.beefusa.org/uDocs/grace.pdf

"Study Finds Vegetarians Have Smaller Brains":
http://thehealthyskeptic.org/study-finds-vegetarians-have-smaller-brains

"Does Meat Make Us Sick?":
http://theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/08/does-meat-make-us-sick-q-a-on-veganism-nuts-and-more/2443343/

Dr. Blaylock on dangers of soy:
http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/dr_blaylock/dangers_of_soy/2011/01/20/372072.html?s=al&promo_code=B858-1#ixzz1Bxcbef5f

Here's the study with the big splashy headlines about "Vegetarians less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters". Then if you read the report, you find that their vegetarians were MORE likely to have cervical and bowel cancer. So the headline was totally false!
Supposedly those who eat LOTS of RED meat are more prone to blood cancers, while fish eaters do better than either vegetarians or meat eaters. All in all, the finding are meaningless. We are not told what proportion of those studied were in the various groups, and what other lifestyle factors were involved. Maybe meat eaters are also more likely to smoke? Maybe they are older? Who knows? No mention of other factors. And the study relied on subjective report of diets which could be faulty.Was the red meat grilled or cooked in high heat? Grilling or frying are known to produce carcinogenic substances. Was the risk lower if the meats were baked, roasted, poached or cooked rare? Was there a large percentage of processed meats or meats with preservatives among the cancer group? Could be that THOSE are the culprits for any presumed cancer risk.
It's a rather worthless study but here is the new article if you care to read it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/01/vegetarians-blood-cancer-diet-risk

Pet store protest bimbos

2011-08-06T12:53:00.000-07:00

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!

The Blame Game

2011-07-30T11:19:00.000-07:00

When a case of animal abuse comes to light, the first reaction is to point fingers. But does a judgmental attitude help or hinder the cause of animal welfare?

Animal welfare issues are increasingly at the forefront of the national news lately. Breeder raids, dogs in deplorable conditions, stray dogs, injured dogs, dogs turned in to shelters by their owners. Dogs dumped at the side of the road by the very person they trust to care for them. Such incidents of animal abuse and neglect are covered on TV or in the newspapers on a regular, ongoing basis. Pictures are often included to support the claim of neglect or abuse. Is this really the way we treat "man's best friend"?

With all this sensational reporting in the media, we may tend to develop a skewed perception of the treatment of dogs in the USA. We might forget that the vast majority of Americans love their animals and would never abuse them, at least not intentionally. We believe that animals should be treated humanely, and most of us support animal welfare.

What exactly is meant by “animal welfare”? The American Veterinary Medical Association states on their website: “Ensuring animal welfare is a human responsibility that includes consideration for all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia.”

Concerns for animal welfare have promoted a general awareness of the need for proactive rescue efforts in order to prevent shelter deaths. The public has rallied to the cry to seek out their next pet from a shelter or rescue, to the tune of about four million animals "adopted" each and every year.

Sometimes in the zeal to promote animal welfare, animal advocates may cross into the territory of the Animal Rights philosophy. As society has become more urbanized and we have less contact with our agricultural roots, people may begin to confuse animal welfare with animal rights. It is important to distinguish between the two.

Animal rights is a philosophy that animals have rights similar to or the same as humans. True animal rights advocates believe that humans do not have the right to "use" animals in any capacity. They would prohibit raising of animals to produce meat, leather, wool, feathers, fur, eggs, milk and honey. The would also ban hunting, fishing, rodeos, horse racing, circuses, life-saving medical research using animals, petting zoos, marine parks, breeding of pets, use of dogs for police work, hunting, herding, as well as “seeing eye” and other therapy dogs. In short, any use of animals for industry, entertainment, sport, recreation or companionship would be banned under the animal rights philosophy.

Prominent animal rights groups include PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), IDA (In defense of Animals), SHAC (Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty) and Mercy for Animals. These so-called “animal rights” groups have a definite, well-planned agenda in raising the issue of perceived animal abuse in the media. The "AR" groups wish to promote excessive regulatory legislation under the guise of controlling animal abuse. The animal rightists’ goal is to make animal ownership incrementally more expensive and inconvenient. In so doing, they will achieve an overall decline in animal ownership in society.

PETA claims on their internet homepage, “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, use for entertainment…” However, the animal rights hypocrites at PETA do not have any genuine concern about animal welfare. PETA manages to kill thousands of defenseless pets every year at their Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has killed 25,840 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding them homes. In contrast, other shelters in the area save the majority of their intakes. PETA employees admitted picking up puppies and kittens from local veterinarians' offices, supposedly to "help" get them new homes. Instead, they killed them in the van and then dumped the bodies. They never even made it out of PETA's van! This horrific activity went on for months. These PETA employees were subsequently convicted of "littering" dead animals in various dumpsters in their area.

HSUS is governed by a similar twisted animal rights extremist philosophy. Miyun Park, HSUS Vice President from 2005-2009, said at an animal rights conference in 2006: “We don’t want any of these animals to be raised and killed [for food]…unfortunately we don’t have the luxury of waiting until we have the opportunity to get rid of the entire industry. And so because of that….we work on promoting veganism.”

The official “Animal Rights Agenda” was drafted in 1987 and included in the Green Party platform, and was also published in ‘Animals Agenda’ magazine. The “Agenda” includes this statement of policy:

We strongly discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or purebred dogs and cats. Spay and neuter clinics should be subsidized by state and municipal governments. Commerce in domestic and exotic animals for the pet trade should be abolished.

The animal rights groups are well-funded, well-organized and well-staffed, and they utilize effective methods to shape public opinion. These methods include intimidation, such as boycotts of pet stores and furriers, aggressive media rhetoric campaigns. At times they resort to outright terrorism such as physical attacks on scientific researchers, and highly-publicized (though invariably illegal) raids on breeders, in order to achieve their goals.

The Animal Rightists (or perhaps they should be called "Animal Wrongists”?) have become experts in twisting public opinion on animal issues, including dog breeding and selling. Such activities are now widely regarded in an unfavorable light by the general public.

But it isn't just the animal rights groups who sling arrows at those with animal interests. Dog hobbyists, pet owners, rescue leaders, and members of the public are often among the most vocal critics of perceived animal abuse. When dogs are given up, it's not uncommon for rescue personnel to criticize those who relinquish their dogs, and snicker at their reasons as "lame excuses". In reality, the purpose of shelter and rescue in our society is not to point fingers with disdain at the public, it is to find homes for adoptable dogs. Neither a condescending attitude nor playing the blame game will help animals find homes.

Nathan Winograd, an shelter expert who is pioneering No-Kill sheltering methods in this country, believes that the focus should be on positive programs that save lives. He has demonstrated in community after community that changing attitudes can dramatically reverse the killing tide and help to solve the challenges of pet homelessness. Dwelling on the reasons that pets are relinquished does nothing to solve these problems. We should encourage more families to adopt pets rather than place roadblocks on the path to adoption.

Innovative social programs are the keys to success. Such methods as foster care, extended shelter hours, promoting outside adoptions, and behavior rehabilitation programs have been used very successfully in many areas where they have made the commitment to implement no-kill sheltering. Blaming the bogeyman of "irresponsible owners" is a waste of useful time and energy, and has no place in a successful shelter program.

When we blame the public for animal sheltering problems, we fall into a similar mindset as that which is used by the sheltering industry when they kill animals. "If only people were more responsible, these animals would not have to be killed" is a common reasoning held among shelter workers. Indeed, this attitude is one that animal shelter personnel share with the animal rights groups. Animal rights groups such as PETA and HSUS further believe that "killing is kindness" to quote PETA's president Ingrid Newkirk. And kill they do, all the while blaming the irresponsible public. The HSUS even offers seminars for animal control departments in which they urge that animals in shelters be killed as soon as any mandatory holding period expires. Playing up the "irresponsibility" of the general public makes a great excuse to continue to kill thousands of animals, and to raise more obstacles to pet ownership.

And, many of the reasons for pet relinquishment are not due to irresponsibility, but are the result of legitimate social problems. There have been studies done on the "official" reasons that pets are relinquished to shelter or rescue. The reality of life today is forged by economics. The #1 reason for pet relinquishment is cited as “moving.” High rates of unemployment and home foreclosure contribute to this phenomenon. Unfortunately, financial problems may mean that some pets must be re-homed out of necessity. Pets may also find themselves in need of shelter or rescue due to other unforeseen circumstances such as sudden death or incapacity of the owner.

Behavioral problems are rarely cited as a reason for relinquishment, but issues such as excessive barking, difficulty with housebreaking, destructiveness, and incompatibility with children are common reasons for the honeymoon with a pet to end. When people are confronted with a behavior problem that they can't solve, what happens? Many times the dog is given up....or maybe even taken to a distant location and dumped out of frustration on the part of the owner.

To help get pets into the most compatible homes and keep them there, animal welfarists know that public education and support programs are critical. Most individual breeders and breed rescue groups provide educational information about the requirements of their particular breed and are able to advise would-be owners on whether the breed or individual dog in question would be a good match for their particular situation. A good breeder can also serve as an invaluable resource person who the pet buyer can turn to when they have questions or problems.

When adopting a shelter or rescue dog of unknown parentage and background, advice and support may also sometimes be needed and there are limited resources for such help. The California Federation of Dog Clubs has recently developed a brochure with training tips including basic obedience, housebreaking and leash training. We also have established a 1-800 help line for people to call if they have questions or problems with their dog. This brochure is now being distributed to all the shelters in our state, so that new owners can have a resource and reference when they adopt a new dog. This is another example of proactive methods employed by animal welfare advocates.

Let’s try to solve the problems involved with re-homing dogs without looking to find fault and blame in the situation. Such attitudes are nonproductive and can in fact be used as part of the propaganda to further the anti-ownership, pro-killing agenda of the animal rights movement.