Of Interest to Anyone who Eats Food

I was cruising my favorite blogs and came across this from the VIN News Service.

I am in direct opposition to H$U$ and think they are the Devil's Spawn but at the same time, I have some pressing concerns about the Nation's food supply.

Other blogs have addressed this better, addressing the discussion to pet food products with a caveat that the food supply in this country feeds us all. Human and animal alike. A Google search for pet food recall or contaminated food conjures up list after list, page after page, of food products that are additives or whole source foods for humans too.

Agri-business has much to atone for with the recent outbreaks of salmonella in the human food supply, from greens to nuts, including my absolute fave, pistachios.

Aw, nuts!

Who can forget the huge expose' on the pet food industry only a few years ago? Some news services considered the public outcry an "overreaction". You know, like, it's just pets and all... So a few people died. Who cares!!

My concern is that it is beginning to appear with a sinister regularity in our headlines. What people are simply failing to understand is that the affected foodstuff is impacting the consumer supply for every domestic animal and human in the nation.

So where does this alarming and remarkable article from VIN fit?

Lifted directly from the article:

"Veterinarians spend their lives promoting the well-being of animals. Yet at the same time, activists appear to be guiding America’s attitudes on animal welfare, experts say, working to erode veterinary medicine’s authority on the topic and divide the profession."

With a correction to it's authors; H$U$ and PeTA have no interest in 'animal welfare'. It is all about animal rights.

An example of this from the article:

"While the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) carefully weighs scientific evidence to establish opinions on what’s in the best interest of animals, HSUS and its cohorts are preening their message, using emotion to drown out the more moderate voice of organized veterinary medicine."

There is not a lot of consensus over this or any topic that has more than one set of "experts". Large animal vets are accused of being deep in the pockets of agri-business while small animal vets endorse more humane practices for animals raised as food.

I am on two sides of this argument:

I could give a rat's arse about agri-business; they have done more to destroy the fabric of the family owned and operated farms and homesteads (of which I am a product) in favor of mass producing a food supply whose very existence endorses dubious practices in husbandry and safety for the consumers of their products.

So. Does the H$U$ have a point? Sure it does. But should they be the ones dictating the practices of agri-farms and food producers?

H$U$ suggests that animals raised for food should be kept in a more 'natural state', enabling them to pasture in open areas, be able to move about freely without restraint. Opposition contends that "...such mandates merely trade one set of welfare concerns for another. Animals housed in open systems are more vulnerable to disease, parasite infestation and injury due to aggressive pen-mates. The system also makes it more difficult track an animal’s medical health and care, AVMA officials contend."

So, who's right?

The real fear is the ultimate agenda: "... those who liken HSUS to “PETA-light extremism” fear the organization’s fingerprints on agriculture housing bans are a precursor to the group’s ultimate agenda — to end animal ownership and remove meat from the diets of Americans."

Jack Advent, OVMA executive director stated, “What we do know is that if there is no dialogue, HSUS has stated that they will simply collect the signatures they need to go to the ballot where the electorate will decide on the issues. We don’t want to close the door to something like legislation, which could be far more palatable than what might be on a ballot initiative.”

H$U$'s strategy has clearly demonstrated superiority in the devious department. They have successfully created strategies by targeting communities with a small agricultural footprint where opposition would not be significant, coupled with their appeals directly to the public instead of through introducing legislation which would have likely been opposed by lawmakers and/or lobbyists.

The article states "In 2002, voters in Florida — one of 24 states that allow for citizen referendum — became the nation’s first to enact a ban on swine gestation stalls after HSUS waged a two-year publicity campaign and gathered more than 600,000 signatures to get the issue on the ballot. Five years later, Arizona voters outlawed gestation stalls by 2012. It reportedly cost Arizona's agriculture groups roughly $1.6 million in a failed bid to combat the HSUS message. Both states have very little in terms of swine operations."

Wow, huh?

California's Prop 2 passed in November with over 63% of the vote, which analysts say will devastate "... the future of the state’s egg industry, and many hope that a bill currently playing out in the state Legislature will level the playing field for California’s producers by imposing free-range requirements on eggs imported from other states."

Peter Weber, executive director of the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association is relieved that similar legislation proposed in Illinois failed in February, stating that "It was abundantly clear that this bill plays to people’s emotions. There just isn’t the science to back the need for it.”

The veterinary community's decidedly neutral stance is pretty ominous. Their inability to come up with a plan of their own allows for H$U$ to intervene where they truly have no business. That the system needs to be changed is not really the issue. It has been clear for years that it does.

The USDA's inability to adequately police agri-business lends itself to reform. A more proactive role in the safety of our food supply is necessary to assure it "fit for consumption".

Food is big business, for ourselves and our animals. The two are related. There is not a lot of oversight in the pet food market and precious little effective oversight in the human consumer markets.

Legislation is becoming increasingly restrictive in the production of low-cost food for consumers allowing the slow food and locavore movements to gain momentum. By providing attractive alternatives to agri-business and the food/animal controversy, a locally produced food source encourages consumers to take a more proactive role in policing their own food supply.

It has a far healthier impact on local economies as well and promotes a broader concern for the welfare and safety of our consumer goods.

Sometimes the old ways are best. Supporting the production of locally raised food products has been a cultural icon of the United States since the beginning of our country's history. Only since the return of the soldiers from WWII has agri-business forced small family owned farms to surrender to a greater demand for goods and monopolized the production of food for the nation.

The government subsidizing of growing 'more, faster' has had a profound impact on our safety, our health and the sustainability of our food supply. With the depletion of the aquifers in the Midwest, we face a far greater danger as the agri-businesses loose their ability to maintain high volume production for a teeming nation of fast food consumers.

It is within our ability to make a statement about our concern for the food we feed not only our animals, but ourselves and our children. At the same time, the dictatorial practices of H$U$ is clearly not the way. In order to preserve our rights as consumers and suppliers we must take a more active role in the production of our food supply.

There has got to be a better way.

Trolling for Puppies: The TRUTH??? To be filed under Gimme a $%^& Break

Grand Opening of Woof Worx in Los Angeles features animal shelter rescued pups. Purebreds no less.....

In their sincerest belief that they are providing assistance to "puppy mill dogs" and shelters purportedly overrun with unwanted pets, they are offering purebred puppies for sale, er 'adoption' through a sanctioned pet store.

A Puppy-Store-Free LA's tag-line "...is to end the sale of puppies at pet stores in L.A."

But it's OK if they do it, right?
___________________________________________________________________

Excerpts from the article follow, anything within the parentheses are mine.



"Eight months ago, Best Friends LA launched A-Puppy-Store-Free LA to stop pet stores from selling puppies because, sadly, that doggie in the window comes from a puppy mill. Not only is this a heartbreaking situation for the dogs being forced to breed in deplorable conditions, but for the new pet parents, as well."


(Sadly, there is still a doggie in the window, but this one is BETTER because you are SAVING it from the horrors of being sold in a pet store. Do you honestly think that the source is any different or any better for these pups? What is THEIR source for dogs? Have they started their own captive breeding program???)


"A puppy purchased from a pet store can cost up to $1,500. More often than not, these sweet new additions have congenital disorders and may die with in the first two years of life due to inbreeding and unhealthy living situations. Few families can afford the thousands of dollars on unexpected vet bills and many puppies are surrendered to shelters, where they are euthanized or wait in vain for a new home. Most never get that second chance."


(But a puppy purchased, er 'adopted' through us is an endorsement of our belief that all breeders are bad and that our pet shop is different and somehow better than other pet shops. Cuz we sell designer pet clothes and green products, and and and, puppies!!! Yeah. Ok. Uh Huh? But few families can afford the undisclosed vet costs for unforseen events from your puppies either, can they? Or have you specifically selected for genetic defects in your shelter dogs and screen for congenital defects in your neonates and follow the most astringent health conscious protocols available? I want to see a guarantee that the buyers, uh, 'adopters' of your pound pups are contractually bound to return the dog to YOU if something goes wrong. What't that? As an agent of the shelter who provides your product, you can't make such a guarantee? Indeed. And you are better than the Hunte Corp and PetLand how?)


"Best Friends has been hard at work to find an alternative, and collaborated with Woof Worx (formerly Pets of Bel Air) on the idea to sell wonderful, healthy, purebred puppies that come from local shelters. For a mere fraction of what it would cost at a traditional pet store, people can adopt one (or more) of these dogs, support a business that’s doing the right thing, and save a life."


(An ALTERNATIVE? Are you nutz? Wonderful, healthy purebred puppies from WHERE? Where are the local 'shelters' getting them from? Oh, oh Sorry I forgot! From the confiscation of animals by the new ordinances being passed like wildfire in your state and others thanks to our pals at H$US. For a 'mere fraction' of the cost at a traditional pet store! YOU ARE A TRADITIONAL PET STORE!!! Adopt my ass. Buy. Face it. You offer a commodity and people are paying you MONEY for that commodity. But of course, under the protection of the law that should come as caveats for anyone falling for this bunk. What is your guarantee that these pups will not fall victim to congenital defect, hereditary defect, communicable disease or die by the age of two? Are you going to take them back? Are you going to pay for their vet care when it is discovered that your product is as defective as PetLand's? What is the recourse for the consumer, er, 'pet parent'? Adopt one or more? What happens if one gets returned at say, 4 or 5 months old because it is a behavior issue or the owners are 'moving' or whatever the lamest excuses that shelters usually get. What then? Where do the puppies go? Hold on a minute there Nelly, in a community that is endorsing the limitation of pets owned by it's citizens, are you actually telling me that your employees are going to do 'home visits' and all that? Riiiiiiiiight..... And the save-a-life thingy. Sounds like a marketing ploy to me.....)


"Jamie Katz, owner of Woof Worx, proudly opened the doors last weekend to over 150 supporters of this new concept. Veggie hors d’oeuvres and wine were served at the beautiful, high-end pet store in the heart of Bel Air."


(I bet she was proud. Came up with a really good way to make money, uh, stay in business, er help the plight of puppy mills being sold in pet stores and make it look like she was doing something good for the community. To 150 supporters no less. At the beautiful, high end PET STORE in the heart of Bel Air!!! Who is buying this crap? Are the people of this Nation so indoctrinated that they can no longer see the forest for the trees?)



"Available dogs were there to celebrate their new lives, as well. This is not a typical store where puppies are kept in cramped confinement on newspaper or plastic flooring. Think of it as an indoor dog park. The puppies had toys, individual soft beds, even an indoor pet potty. A comfy couch is in the puppy room for anyone who wants to get acquainted with their potential new family member or just be covered with puppy kisses."


(Available dogs are everywhere, like at traditional shelters who could really benefit from this kind of BS PR. This is not a typical store. OK, then mandate that all pet stores, just like your pet store, are as wonderfully equipped. Tell me. After operating hours, where are all the dogs housed and how are they cared for? Is there someone there to clean up after the potential family members overnight and on days where the shelter, uh, non puppymill supplied pet store is closed? Lemme guess, they are 'free range' in the indoor dog park.)


“We are so thrilled to be partnering with Jamie Katz, the owner of this beautiful store, and to support her in her efforts,” says Elizabeth Oreck, BFLA manager. “We truly believe that traditional pet stores that sell dogs from puppy mills will soon be a thing of the past, and that a store like Woof Worx will become a national model for cities all across the country."


(Oh I bet! Especially that part about traditional pet stores being a thing of the past, since yours will represent a new age income stream because instead of your product coming from puppy mills or from unscrupulous dealers who will find a way to continue to supply the new niche you have just created, it will be stocked with purebred puppies born...where? Are shelters going to start their own breeding program for purebred dogs? Gonna have to if HSUS has it's way and effectively shuts down hobby breeders who actually care about the quality, health and longevity of the animals they create.)



“This is not only a great way to showcase rescued animals who need homes, and to help lower the number of dogs and cats in our drastically overcrowded shelters, but an opportunity to educate the public about animal welfare issues. And we are so grateful to Jamie for taking that leap and being willing to show the rest of the country that a successful pet store can be modeled on compassion rather than cruelty.”


(A better way would be to stop offering purebred puppies and bring adult shelter dogs of ANY breed or mix of breeds and sell, uh, adopt them instead!! Drastically overcrowded shelters? C'monnnnn! Stop importing dogs from the islands, overseas and focus on the ones in your own back yard!!! And besides we all know that shelter population numbers are an amalgam of both cat and dog numbers when in fact the cat populations outstrip dog populations in shelters 3 to 1.*
Thanks for making a cunning business decision and finding a way to keep the doors open and showing the rest of the country how to game the system and still make a profit!! Sure the store is nice, with all of the high-end Californication trappings of wealth and do-goodery, but thanks for admitting that it's still a pet store.)


Katz was an employee of Pets of Bel Air when BFLA began its peaceful protests.

“I always knew in my heart that selling puppies this way was wrong,” she says. “I’m a huge animal lover and advocate of animal welfare.”


(And probably had really good grades at business school)


Katz acquired the store when the original owner of Pets of Bel Air lost his lease, due in part to Best Friends’ protests.


(Whalp, waddya know? And this was on her own capital or through funding of BFLA?)


"Jennifer Krause, puppy mill campaign coordinator, thanked all the volunteers, supporters and Jamie. “This is a huge victory, and we couldn’t have done without them. Jamie just gets it.”"


(Why Shore it is, for all of the MBA's in business, let this be your model.)

____________________________________________________________________

Here's the thing. I hate pet stores that sell pets, and I hate the suppliers who provide them with product at such considerable cost and sacrifice to living, breathing animals.

I also hate duplicity and being wanked by the absolute bullshit that surrounds a campaign by those who allegedly (new favorite word) are in it for the animals.

I hate that the gubmint is trying to dictate to me the number of animals I am allowed to own, that they have bits and pieces that are their birthright and that this movement is being endorsed by people who claim to have the best interests of animals at heart.

Many questions emerge:

1) Who is supplying this new demand for purebred dogs if all of the breeders are put out of business and shelters are advocating spay and neuter for every animal that crosses their doorsteps?

2) Dogs are going to be the new crack cocaine if this comes to pass. How can this organization reconcile the belief in an overpopulation problem and turn around and endorse the continued sale of purebred dogs in pet stores? I would LOOOOOOOOOVE to have seen THIS business model!!!

3) Why can't they make this believable, even palpable, by just creating a storefront in affluent areas to elevate the consciousness of the wealthy elite to the plight of dogs of every stripe, not just purebreds, not just puppies?

4) What do you think is going to emerge from this new business model?


*Statistically, this figure bears out across the nation. Stray cats comprise the largest single number in shelter populations for both animals housed and animals euthanized. But we are dealing with California here, so I am using a California statistic. More info can be had here.

The question arises about the actual accuracy of supplied numbers from a variety of recognized sources. Usually the number of animals in a shelter is defined as dogs AND cats as opposed to dogs, then cats. Statistics can be parsed to say anything and should be viewed with concern for their accuracy in accounting for the segregation of the total numbers.

Rescues Rescues Everywhere.....

My personal thanks to my colleague Roger for allowing me the privilege of posting this. Be assured that his open letter mirrors the sentiment of many dog trainers who are actively involved in rescue, breed specific rescue and dog concentric activities.

Some comments that appear in parenthesis are mine and will be addressed as such.

Rescues, Rescues Everywhere Till Not A Dog In Sight

In considering how to approach a subject like dog rescue, it is
important to recognize the potential for controversy as it relates to
the facts and the conclusions one might arrive at. It is with this in
mind that I write; acknowledging the risk that the points I am trying
to make might be misinterpreted. Therefore, let me state clearly that
I admire and respect those who dedicate time and effort to dog rescue.
When addressing any topic where passions are high, one can be sure the
feelings that are touched lie just below the surface. In fact, as I
will discuss later in this article, it is these very passions that are
sometimes played with, manipulated and preyed upon in driving an
agenda that is very much anti-dog.

While I generally support the work of many rescue organizations, I do
have concerns with how some operate. A list of those concerns might
look something like this:
- An attitude of save 'em all at any cost
- Poor utilization of scarce resources
- Bad matches resulting in wrong dog placed with wrong family
- Agendas driven by idealism interfering with effective and efficient
operation
- Animal Rights proponents infiltrating, taking over the cause,
re-framing the issue and driving the agenda. Many, if not most, of the
issues on that list are connected to some degree though they manifest
in different ways.

(BLOGGER COMMENT:My only addition to the above mentioned concerns is the OPPOSITE of bullet point one, the faction of people who condemn perfectly good dogs to die for some arbitrary testing criterion that in no way can accurately measure a dog's temperament)

Those who participate in rescue are understandably passionate about
saving dogs. Some would say "All Dogs" - even those dogs that are
un-salvageable and cannot safely be re-homed. With the growing move
toward "no kill" shelters and rescues, some dogs are simply being
locked away indefinitely at a very high cost and sometimes already
tight budgets get stretched to a breaking point. The fact is, you
cannot save them all and in trying to do so, pressure is being allowed
to build up within the rescue/welfare system that helps fuel the
concept of crisis…a concept that is then being used to fuel the
support of some anti-dog agendas.

For some unscrupulous folks, people's concern for animals is something
that can be exploited and the rescue concept can be used as a
political and/or a business opportunity. Not long ago a couple dog
owners contacted me to help train their dog Nikki. Nikki is a handsome
medium sized dog of unknown mixed parentage. His owners, a young
professional couple, report, "Nikki is a wonderful dog, he just has a
few issues we must get under control."

As it turns out, Nikki has a propensity to get into fights with other
dogs, runs off any chance he gets, steals stuff, can be very
destructive and is almost impossible to walk. His owners inform me
that they got Nikki through a rescue organization in the mid-west USA
and that he got there from someplace in Mexico. Noting my puzzled
expression, they explain that even though they know there are dogs
available locally, they wanted to contribute to a larger cause and
help a dog from more difficult circumstances.

Nikki is not unique in my experience. I've had clients tell me of the
hundreds of dollars they paid for the Bouvier that was "rescued" from
a puppy farm in Quebec – they got him by arranging to meet some guy on
the side of the highway. The dog was transferred from his van to their
car and the deal was sealed by them handing over a considerable sum of
money "to help defray expenses." Or how about the Chihuahua obtained
from someone's basement in Toronto for several hundred dollars. They
were told the place was a foster residence and the money helped cover
costs – they were also told they could pick any kind of small dog they
liked and the foster residence could get it for them. They believed
the story that all the dogs were rescues and therefore they were doing
a good thing. From the dogs reportedly rescued from the puppy mill in
northern Quebec to the side street operations in Toronto, it is
becoming more and more common to see
'rescue' dogs being shipped far and wide…sometimes with exorbitant
price tags attached to boot.

Every year millions of concerned citizens mistakenly believe they are
helping, to take care of pets in need, by donating millions of dollars
to Animal Rights organizations (some posing as animal welfare groups).
Fact is that while most front line rescue groups have almost no money,
very few resources and rely on donations from patrons within the
community to survive, outfits like HSUS have their coffers full and
very little ever finds it's way back to actually helping the animals.
What do such groups use the money for? While I don't have access to
their budgets and can't give a full accounting, there seems to be
plenty of evidence that a good portion of it goes to fund political
activities in line with promoting the AR agenda. Some of the money
goes directly into funding unreasonable restrictions on dog ownership,
dog care, reproduction and various other anti-dog type laws – all with
a view to first restrict and ultimately eliminate the
ability to own and enjoy the company of a dog.

When considering the very limited resources that some rescues are
faced with, it always amazes me to see some of the spending choices
that are made. Excessive numbers of man-hours and finances will
sometimes be dedicated to single projects resulting in even less to go
around to those other equally worthy dogs that remain. It's not just a
case of poor financial choices either. I've seen many cases where
rescues, crying they are overcrowded, because of some questionable
idealistic criteria, refuse perfectly good homes. Multi page
questionnaires complete with reference requirements, home-visits,
contracts limiting ownership, requirements and restrictions concerning
training that are permitted and even the physical structure of the
home are often cited as reasons an adoption was turned down. Some
rescues criteria would rival that of any child-adoption process.

Earlier, I gave an example of a "long-distance" rescue that happened
to be a problem dog. Of course not all long distance rescues are
problem dogs – many are just "normal" dogs with nothing to distinguish
them from any other dog found in any other place. Many, if not most of
the problem rescue dogs ending up in people's homes come from local
rescues.

It has been my experience that some rescues are much better than
others at screening out dogs which should be placed very carefully or
not be placed at all. For example, one rescue that comes to mind has
repeatedly placed dangerous dogs in the homes of unsuspecting
families. Zealously operating from a viewpoint that suggests all dogs
must be saved, they will place dogs with serious bite histories in a
succession of homes (taking it back after every incident and then
re-homing in a different unsuspecting household).

All the concerns I've noted so far represent challenges that can be
overcome by knowledgeable individuals that are committed to
strengthening the dog-owner relationship and are dedicated to this
cause. Unfortunately, these difficulties are also proving to be
fertile ground for the much more sinister agenda of the Animal Rights
movement.

"When an enemy tells you he is going to kill you believe him." This
quote, attributed to Congressman Lungren, is based on a holocaust
survivor that, when asked the one thing he learned, reportedly said,
"When your enemy says he will exterminate you, believe him." When
exploring the efforts of those that would see us loose our right to
own and train our dogs, it is worth keeping this thought in mind and
not minimize the intention and efforts invested by such individuals.

The Animal Rights movement has been both insidious and relentless in
their efforts to successfully infiltrate and distort the principles of
animal welfare. Rescues, shelters and pounds have not been immune from
this onslaught. Indeed, many of the initiatives and legislative pushes
(behind restricting/eliminating dog ownership) can be found in the way
these well meaning groups have been vulnerable to exploitation and
manipulation by the Animal Rights agenda.

It would be impossible to fully discuss the Animal Rights agenda in an
article such as this – indeed whole books have been written on the
subject that I'd encourage each person (reading this) to seek out and
read for them self. Briefly stated, however, the AR movement seeks to
end all use of animals and/or ownership in any form. They'd like to
see the extinction of any animal that is domesticated or "man made,"
and with respect to our pets and companion animals…they would sever
that relationship entirely.

If this is indeed their agenda, what factors (within the shelter
movement) might they distort and exploit? The most obvious is the
"overcrowded" conditions and lay the blame for it at the feet of the
dog fancy. They also use their own peculiar take on this to push for
the mandatory sterilization of dogs. Their hope is to slowly drain the
gene pool until it is dry. Recently they have become emboldened in
their attacks against those breeding and showing their dogs – painting
all with the image of "puppy millers." All "man made" breeds are at
risk as they push for creative ways to limit/prevent breeding. They
use everything from pushing mandatory spay/neuter laws, to laws that
outright ban or at least unreasonably restrict breeding and they
couple this with the liberal use of the puppy mill label. In their use
of these initiatives, they use every opportunity to pit those involved
in rescue against those who participate in the dog fancy.

The fact is however, that of the millions of dogs that end up in the
shelter/rescue system, very few are purebred dogs produced by
responsible breeders within the dog fancy. Indeed, among the main
reasons that dogs are given up to shelters or rescues are behavioural
issues.

The following is quoted from the "Dog Owners Guide" an online magazine
for pet and show dog owners
(http://www.canismajor.com/dog/surrend1.html). A bit of research
reveals that numerous articles support these same conclusions. To
illustrate the point, here then is the quote:

"Several years ago, the Humane Society of the US initiated a
"voluntary breeding moratorium" to urge dog breeders to stop producing
puppies until all dogs in shelters were adopted to new homes.

"Until there are none, adopt one," the slogan said.

"Thoughtful and caring dog breeders were put on the defensive, pet
stores were vilified, and all commercial kennels were lumped together
as "puppy mills" no matter how they provided for their animals.

"A new study that examined the reasons dogs — about two million each
year — are surrendered to animal shelters has shed new light on the
problem. The main reasons dogs are surrendered is that owners fail to
obedience train or have unrealistic expectations of their pet; the
dogs at highest risk of surrender are those acquired at low or no
cost, especially those that do not visit a veterinarian regularly.

"Gary Patronek VMD, PhD, one of the principle investigators on the
study, presented the results at the NAIA Purebred Rescue Symposium
last March. The work was published in the Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association on August 1, and is corroborated in
another study reported in the August 15 issue of the Journal.

"Patronek and his Purdue University colleagues concluded that dog
owners who pay more than $100 for a dog, take him to a veterinarian
more than once a year, and participate in obedience classes are more
likely to provide a long-term home for the animal.

"Veterinary care and obedience classes may reinforce the bonding of
pet and owner, the researchers wrote ". . . by allowing the owner to
experience and appreciate the positive aspects of pet ownership such
as companionship, affection, entertainment, and security without
overreacting to or being distracted by disruptive or unwanted behavior."

"Their conclusions challenge the assertions of activists that breeders
directly and indirectly produce an "overpopulation" of pets and
provide testimony for early intervention through education, a solution
that breeders, breed clubs, kennel clubs, and the American Kennel Club
have promoted for years."
*******

If well trained, mannerly dogs are way more likely to remain happily
in their homes and out of the shelter system, why is so much emphasis
placed on neutering and very little on training? I can think of a few
possible reasons:
1. The AR movement is not likely to promote strategies that are more
likely to succeed and are at odds with their agenda and basic views.
2. Poorly mannered dogs help create an overall negative view of ALL
dogs in the eyes of the public. This negative image can then be used
to support and promote all sorts of anti-dog legislation.
3. Related to number 2 is the concept of "Untrainability." In
researching what (if any) training various AR groups might support, I
found the sorts of training declared "acceptable" are among the least
effective. The kinds of training that the most difficult and the most
dangerous are unlikely to respond favourably to. If they can "show"
training to be unreliable (and/or cruel) they can maintain the overall
negative view of keeping dogs.

If we are to maintain our relationship with "man's best friend," a
relationship that has survived for thousands of years, we must do
something to effectively address the problems of unwanted and
abandoned dogs. We must not allow ourselves to be sucked into the
emotionally laden arguments of the AR zealots – arguments that are
designed to ultimately see the end of this valued relationship – but
instead, we must be prepared to offer a wide array of solutions that
work. Education and training top such a list of solutions. This factor
alone should be viewed as both an alarming challenge and an
opportunity to effective dog trainers everywhere.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger Hild, CDT
Port Hope, ON, Canada
Professional member IACP #1185
Founding member and past Chairman of the CAPPDT

A Bit off the Beaten Path

I am confident that everyone is either in the grips of news about the Economy or the upcoming election. How this relates to our dogs is multi-fold.

When the economy suffers, there is a distinct rise in the surrender rates at shelters across the country as people determine the hierarchy of priorities for themselves and their families.

Animals suffer as a result.

As for the election, whom we vote for as our leaders determines the interventions and subsequent loss of freedoms that affect our ability to own the animals of our choice and care for them in a way that is beneficial and productive for both species.

My colleague and dear friend Margot Woods of Applewoods Dog Training in Laurel Maryland has a few interesting additions to her blog regarding Animal Rights verses Animal Welfare that addresses the issues of greatest importance to animal owners in the United States of America.

It is important to understand that the political candidates who support such radical views as HSUS and PETA do so exclusively for one of two reasons. The first is the principal of money; the politician needs money to run his campaign and the HSUS and PETA operatives are quick in their approach to candidates who will gobble at the proverbial election campaign contribution "carrot on the stick".

The second principal is simply one that the candidate may simply not be aware of the agendas and sign on in support because they are unfamiliar with the tactics and true ideals behind their new-found allies.

It is important for us to become more involved in the politics that determine not only our fates, but the fates of our animals, our rights to own them and care for them in time honored, respectful ways. The infringement of an oligarchy over the ownership of animals speaks directly to our rights as citizens of this nation and our rights under the Constitutional Laws of our fathers.

No one is opposed to animal WELFARE; the conscious and deliberate acts of protecting animals from abuse and cruelty. Do not be deceived however, by the conscious and deliberate acts of Animal Rights groups to strip you of your rights to own animals.

Forewarned is fore-armed.

Newkirk, after a lobotomy.....

Greetings,
Please read the following article, perhaps copy it and give it to your attending Veterinarian:
"Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete" @ www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

Now, I know the following is long but I believe that is well worth the time and effort it takes to read it. I recently received this article and I'm sending it to you all in full. In these days when politics are being discussed in even the most casual circumstances, this is an issue that can be "quite stimulating" to say the least!

Do you know the real PETA and Humane Society of the United States ( HSUS)
An editorial by Alice Fix

This is a statement made by Ingrid Newkirk, the President of PETA: " I don't use the word 'pet'. I think it's speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal' For one thing, 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 animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus cats and dogs ( artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship - enjoyment at a distance." The Harper's Forum Book Jack Hitt,ed.,7/6/89, p.223

It is interesting that Ms. Newkirk used the word "speciesist" Allwords.com defines that word as follows: 1. The discrimination against, and exploitation of, animals by humans in the belief that humans are superior to all other species of animals and can therefore justify putting them to their own use. One of the animal rights mantras is that all animals are created to be equal to all humans, and should have the same rights as humans. Just in case it still isn't clear what their agenda is, here are a few more quotes from Ingrid Newkirk:

"One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. (Dogs) would pursue their natural lives in the wild... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV." - The Chicago Herald, 3/1/05
" In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether." Newsday, 2/21/07

Ms. Newkirk has very close ties with several groups identified by the FBI as known terrorist groups, such as Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The animal rights group are very well organized, and when you check closely, you will see many of the same names sitting on the boards of these radical groups. They are intertwined and closely linked through their finances, and the work that they do.

PETA operates on an annual budget of $29,000,000 Most of this is through donations made by ordinary citizens that don't know the real work of PETA. Many people think that they are out to save the lives of animals after seeing all of their ads on TV and the newspapers. That is why millions are donated to them each year.

In Virginia, the home state of PETA, in 2004, PETA adopted out 361 animals and euthanized 2,278, according to their records ( www.nokillnow.comPetaDVACreporting.pdf)

Those figures aren't good. That means that they euthanize 86.3% of their animals and only adopt out 13.7%. These figures come directly from PETA's Annual Report and from their 2004 Tax Return.It doesn't seem that they used that $29 million for the betterment of the majority of the animals that they came in contact with.So where is the money going? It is being spent for publicity to raise more money for one thing. It is also being used for legislative purposes. They have placed key people in city governments all over the country to try to influence legislation to take your pet ownership away. And they are having a lot of success with it.

You need to understand the basic difference between the "animal welfare" groups and the "animal rights" groups. Although the names might sound like they have the same objectives, there is a big difference.Animal welfare groups are working to see that all animals are treated humanely. Animal rights groups are working to see that all ownership of animals comes to an end.

As I said, PETA has close ties with many other organizations. One of these organizations is the Humane Society of the United States. (HSUS) People donate millions to the HSUS each year, thinking that their money is going to save the lives of millions of animals. Nothing could be further from the truth.The HSUS does not own a single animal shelter anywhere in the country. Although many shelters have the word Humane Society in their names, they are not associated in any way with HSUS. The HSUS does not sponsor any spay or neuter clinic anywhere in the country. They do donate a very small percent of their annual budget to a few local humane societies, around$2 million annually, which just happens to be less than the amount that they spend in travel each year. Their major money is spent on fund raising and legislative activity. In 2005, they spent $28 million for public mailings, $6 million in vegan education, $10 million in legislative campaigns and litigation. Their income for that year was close to $125 million.

The HSUS was founded in 1954 as an animal welfare organization.By the early 1980's, just about the same time as PETA was founded, they began to change into an animal rights organization. In the 1990's, the personnel began to change to better fit with their new purpose, and today many of the personnel have ties to PETA, including the current President, Wayne Pacelle.
This is an interesting quote from Wayne Pacelle: "we have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock through selective breeding... One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Animal People News 5/1/03

When you combine other statements that he has made, with the above statement, in my opinion the meaning of this statement is that if we could spay and neuter all animals, we could eliminate pet ownership within one generation. "One generation and out" would mean to me that they are gone and are eliminated in only one generation.

Quietly sitting back and maybe not being aware, we are now allowing the HSUS to make presentations at our local schools, with the definite purpose to educate our children about how bad pet ownership is, to indoctrinate children to the thought that animals should be free and not kept as pets. They are doing this in the same way that they have infiltrated city councils and local governments all across the county, quietly and matter-of-factly.

Shortly after taking office, Pacelle announced a merger with the FUND For Animals which have assets of over $20 million, and the Doris Day Animal League. The combined group estimated its 2005 budget at "over $95 million" and also announced the formation of a new "political organization" which will "allow for a more substantial investment of resources in political and lobbying activities. ( www.activistcash.com/organization-overview.cfm/oid/136)

So that is where we find ourselves today. With HSUS and PETA combines annual budgets of over &124 million for political and lobbying efforts to take away our rights to own animals. And that figure does not include the many splinter organization that have been formed from those two major organizations. We are in an uphill battle now, and it will be the fight of our lives to keep our rights to own pets.

They are going at it from many different angles.One way is to get Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) passed. The banning of Pit-Bulls all 0ver the country is a good example. That has caught on like wild fire. The animal rights groups have said that if they can just get one breed banned, then it will be easy to add others to it at a later date, until eventually all breeds are banned.

Another way that they are going about is to have mandatory spay and neuter laws in place.

Just think about it: if all animals are spayed and neutered, when they die,there will be no more domestic animals.Those same words have been said by Wayne Pacelle, the President of HSUS. They have a very well thought out and planned agenda, and they are counting on the ignorance of the American people to get their agenda accomplished. Well guess what: Ignorance can be overcome by education.,The American people may be ignorant about the facts, but they are not stupid.

They can be educated.

We were ignorant before 9-11, and look what effect that had. It caused all Americans to become educated and unite and fight to prevent that from happening again.The difference here is that we are being attacked from within our own country. We are under strong attack by animal rights groups, and I hope that we don't just stand by and allow it to happen.

The animal rights groups are publicly stating that we need to get laws passed so that they can close down all the puppy mills and commercial breeding facilities that have their animals living in inhumane conditions. Just about everyone would agree with the idea that animals should be treated humanely. But that is just the vehicle that they are using to try to do away with all animal ownership, period.

And that is not a statement that they are being all that public about.

You can become active in this fight by telling your friends and neighbors what is going on. You can be an instrument of education. You can also fight this kind of legislation when it is presented in your area. Go to the City Council meetings and make your voice heard. Write letters to the state and federal government officials to offer your services to be on any animal related committee. In short, get the word out to any and all of your friends that own pets. Let them know what is going on. If enough people stop funding the animal rights organizations, we can put them out of business. There is not much that they can do without operating funds.
The next time you think about making a donation to any of these organizations, you better think long and hard about whether you really want your money being spent to take away your rights.

PETA
Humane Society Of The United States
Farm Sanctuary
Fund For Animals
Doris Day Animal League
Earth Save
Green Peace
Physicians For Responsible Medicine
Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
Friends Of Animals
In Defense of Animals
PAWS

Right now the HSUS has started their "First Strike Campaign".

I find that an interesting choice of names.

At www.visualthesaurus.com they define first strike as follows:

First Stike: An attack that is intended to seize or inflict damage on or destroy an objective.

Most people think that "an attack" is on inhumane treatment of animals. They still don't know it is an attack to take your animals away from you.

Last year over 10 million people donated money to the HSUS because of their massive spending on advertising. Most of those 10 million people had no idea what their money was actually going to support.

Better places to donate your money that will fight for your rights to own animals are listed below. These groups are working hard to protect you right to own animals, and to expose the true agenda to much of the animal legislation going on all over the country.

National Animal Interest Alliance
http://www.naiaonline.org/
Sportsmen's And Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
http://www.saova.org/
American Dog Owners Association
http://www.adoa.org/index.cfm
U S Sportsman Alliance
http://www.ussportsmen.org/

You can either make your donations work for you or against you. That decision is yours to make.

This article first appeared in the March, 2007 issue ( Volume V Issue 2) of the Rocky Mountain Wrinkle, the newsletter of the Centennial Shar-Pei Club, Inc.

Any reference to this article must give full credit to the Rocky Mountain Wrinkle, and the Centennial Chinese Shar-Pei Club, Inc,

This appears with permission to cross post as written by the original author.