And Now, the Rest of the Story, or Rub Your Nose in this $%#

This article appeared in a list serv that I share with many of my colleagues.

I will not give credence to it's title or it's content

It highlights the reports of "abuse" by a trainer in New Jersey and similar complaints that have surfaced in New York City, all with incidents that predate either the Minnesota or the New York State bills' attempts to regulate dog trainers.

What I find difficult to believe is that if these reports are true, where is the proof? We insulate ourselves with the trust that these reports are accurate when it is clearly suggested in the case of the New York dog walker/trainer that there may be a hidden agenda, and of the 300 alleged THIRD PARTY reports, no clear evidence exists. Oh, I get it, GUILTY until proven INNOCENT. Gee, what was I thinking....

Huh?

As for the guy in New Jersey, I remember the stink over this a few months ago. A cattle prod was found. A slingshot and a PVC pipe were also found. Early reports suggest that one of these items were found at a colleague's home, not on the property of the target of these charges. If there were concerns 14 years ago as one of the charges suggests, and six since then, why was something not done sooner?

Oh, that's right, it was only important when it suited the proper agenda, like Daschle's taxes or the new head of the Federal Treasury Department and others of the 'New Administration". It only serves a purpose NOW. Not in 1995 when the first alleged crime was perpetrated.

His guilt is assumed, and if he is found so through DUE PROCESS and not the court of public opinion, then we as trainers in our secular community will be justly served as he and his ilk deserve proper punishment for their crimes. Or will we?

Will it be that we are no longer able to practice our craft unless we are supervised by the government to assure that "no harm was done"? Who will be the judge of what constitutes "harm", "inhumane" practices or "abuse"?

What about the owners deeply committed to their dogs who are not served by the government's proposals to endorse certain types of trainers and not others? Will they be forced to give up their dogs because they could not be trained with methods beyond the scope of their definition of approved? How full are the shelters in this country now? How full do you think they will get in the near future if it should come to pass that only "government approved" methods are used?

This is not an endorsement of "punching, hitting, kicking or hanging" dogs by any means. I think such tactics do constitute abuse and I do not personally know of a trainer in my acquaintance who would use such tactics.

It is not the METHOD that defines TRAINED, it is the END RESULT of the training itself. Physically abusing an animal does not constitute a method and defining abuse is the dichotomy. Collars don't abuse dogs, PEOPLE DO. TOOLS are not the issue, who wields the tool is. The banning of tools is the lowest common denominator in all of this and will only serve to be as effective as New York City's current gun control policy.

I see this as a personal vendetta mounted as a political agenda and offered up in a time and place where the controversy can be utilized to it's greatest effect.

The importance of knowing all the facts seems to escape most reporters these days; they are too wrapped up in currying favor amongst their own breed of lobbyists in the political hotbed that surrounds pets and the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR their ownership generates in income for hundreds of thousands of people, businesses and, yup, you guessed it, politicians.

It is inconceivable to me how a party or parties can be so deluded by the fervent scree of a few individuals without the basis of FACT, only the emotion laden mutterings of a few misguided, uneducated bleeding hearts who think they know "inhumane" or "abusive" practices based solely on weak evidence and lots of speculation. And, as I said, perhaps a hidden agenda or two.

Tell me, who is more "abusive"?

Linda Kaim
www.lionheartk9.com

The Story of Edgar Sawtelle and other Fictional Tales...

After much prompting by my colleagues and friends, I broke down and bought the book written by David Wroblewski in the hopes of finally finding a tale worthy of my limited time.

I love to read and in earlier days made a practice of reading as much as I could on any topic I found of interest (to the point that what parts of my home which are not allocated to the housing of dogs, people and all of their accoutrements but to books; hundreds and hundreds of them).

The vast majority of my book space is divined for works of non-fiction but occasionally I will allow a fictional piece to reside there in a collection that ranges from archaeology to astrophysics. Every letter of the alphabet is represented although of late I tend to shove them in any available space and in no particular order. If I have to find something in particular, I have to search each and every spine, looking at each and every title.

Someday, I will treat myself to organizing them in such a way that they are cataloged in some reasonable fashion. Something tells me however, that is not likely to happen anytime soon. Still they proliferate; on nightstands, coffee tables, office desks, kitchen counters, chairs, beds and dining room tables. I cannot pass a bookstore, library or antique shop without buying SOMETHING with pages and text.

I need a bigger house. The Library of Congress or the archives of the Vatican will do nicely.

What drew me to this story of course is the dog component. A genealogy that begins and ends with one family who painstakingly creates a recognizable type of dog based on an intangible virtue.

The founder, John Sawtelle is captivated by a dog he meets by chance in a town distant from the one he lives in, based on how the dog regards him. How the dog looks at him.

In the era of Albert Payson Terhune and his books about the life at Sunnybank Fam, I guess the term that best describes the quality of dog that Sawtelle envisions is 'sagacity'.

I suppose every dog owner would feel that way about their dog, but as a reproducible quality?

He acquires a dog of indiscriminate ancestry through a trade and the Sawtelle dogs are born.

I imagine in the early foundation of all recognizable dog breeds, something similar had to have taken place and the thought becomes not so idyllic after all, but the story unfolds with the principals essentially creating a strain of dogs whose no greater purpose is to be good pets. Or as referred to in the book, 'companion animals'.

There is much of value in this read; of training dogs, rearing dogs, breeding dogs but then the story veers dangerously into a treatise of why 'show dogs' will never be selected as breeding stock but then great importance is placed on (what otherwise should be maintained as arbitrary structure or if you prefer; conformation, of) the Sawtelle dogs.

So why is structure given so much emphasis? My initial thought was that this passage was going to lend itself to the argument of form following function and at least the suggestion of breeding dogs for a purposeful task, but I was mistaken as the story continues to unfold.

Although the story abandons the pretense of being a 'dog story' pretty early on, Mr Wroblewski had an interesting collection of material to work from, but still some of what is portrayed in the book can only come from one who has experienced it first-hand. I read somewhere that Wroblewski had a relative that bred English Springer Spaniels for field trials, but I have not been able to confirm that claim.

There is no illusion about the book being other than a novel, but it is rich with language and descriptions comforting to 'dog people' everywhere. It resonates with the reader that is familiar with dogs and the dog culture. The language is deeply descriptive, warmly familiar and relatively responsible with issues that are germane to breeders, trainers and other dog professionals.

The book never loses enthusiasm for responsible practices and lends insight to much of the concerns surrounding the politics of 'dog'.

The Sawtelle dogs undergo rigorous training and handling from birth to placement and the regimented protocols are documented in such a way as to give clear and concise information on not only their heritage, but their growth and development both physically, mentally and emotionally.

Much of what is done mirrors the processes of conscientious breeders and trainers throughout the ages and one can read this novel and come away with a feeling that there IS someone out there that KNOWS what it's like to handle a great dog from the moment of it's birth to it's passing.

Much of what is written should be done for ALL DOGS, representing goals all dog breeders should aspire to, all trainers should aspire to accomplish at all levels of obedience.

But the story takes it's departure from our personal beliefs through a dialogue remembered by the central character regarding a conversation about the breeding to "show dogs" and how that 'must never occur' in the grand scheme of the Sawtelle dogs. Another about the value of the Sawtelle dogs as it relates to the value of a pup from a 'show ring Champion'.

I do not disagree with the concept, as most dogs of pure breeding today are rife with hereditary defects that disable their abilities to function in the capacities that they were developed and maintained for. My departure came when I realized that the Sawtelle dogs were specifically created for 'that one-in-a-million' quality that is so intangible that it cannot be measured by breeding for or training for. These mythological beasts were created out of whimsy to satisfy one man's quest for 'sagacity'.

The current definition of a show dog is pretty much like what you see at the Westminster Kennel Club's annual show in New York. It is an arbitrary adherence to an arbitrary standard of physical perfection (conformation) without the rigorous testing that only a standard of FUNCTION can determine.

What was originally intended to identify the physiology of exemplary working structure borne by merit of performance has been reduced to the production of Beauty Pageant contestants.

As a dog professional, I understood the derision and the reference, but I got lost when I realized that the description of the Sawtelle dogs became one of an esthetic standard. If not in physiology, then one of the mind.

And then there's the line as remembered by the son Edgar about what a dog 'meant'.

The construction of the dialogue with Fortunate Fields and the correspondance over what the founder of the Sawtelle dogs called the "next dogs".

All interesting hypothesis that ends up tragically wasted by the ending of the book.

These qualities that Sawtelle sought are those of the mind. I got the impression that what he was trying to create was literally a mind-reading dog, or one so perceptive to it's owners needs that it could interpret human behavior and engage it on a cerebral level.

The final portion of the book has the lead character literally releasing the dogs into the wild where they take up with a feral dog that is written about intermittently throughout the story.

The reader is left to come to his own conclusions regarding the outcome of the dogs, the genetic endowment and the painstaking work to create them in one final cataclysmic blow.

It's a good read for a lot of people. Dog folks too, if you can suspend your disbelief and remember that it is a work of fiction.

I am ambivalent about the book. I liked the story until it grinds to a screeching halt undoing anything I had personally hoped for regarding the outcome of the magnificent Sawtelle dogs and their rich, inspiring history.

I hated the fact that it played on the dubious fortune of randomly breeding dogs for a reason that is, to me at least, a bit pretentious. This train of thinking is what has given birth to the capitalization of 'new breeds' of designer dogs instead of preserving the working qualities of the dogs at hand.

I was left thinking about the concept of the "next dogs" and what ramifications that could possibly have.

As for what a dog "meant" all one has to do is ask a dog owner who has painstakingly created a relationship with his animal, a breeder who has chosen judicious selection to a standard of performance over the contentious fad breeding of the show dog populations and the trainer, who has endured to understand dogs through observation, effort and compassion.

I have already found a home for my copy.

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.