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