Preserving, protecting and ensuring a future for heritage breeds
By Gina Spadafori
May 24, 2007
Fellow Pet Connection blogger Christie Keith (shown at right with her late, beloved Scottish Deerhound Raven) is a night owl. I’m an early bird. Sometimes when I get up (usually between 4 and 5 a.m.), it’s only an hour or two after Christie has gone to bed, 100 miles away.
What I find in the morning on the blog is often better than a cuppa Joe and the morning news. This morning, no exception.
See, we’ve been writing that AB 1634, California’s so-called “Healthy Pets Act,” takes a simple approach to complex problem, and in so doing will end up targeting people who are not causing the problem of unadoptable pets: Responsible, reputable breeders.
This idea runs counter to the “until there are none, adopt one” point of view held by people who truly do believe that a breeder is a breeder is a breeder and all are the root of the problem. These folks argue that if you want, say, a healthy, temperamentally sound Yorkshire Terrier and none are available, you will adopt a large pit-bull or pit mix, which is what fills the shelters, or even an adult cat. This completely ignores the reality of the situation — an actual shortage of the animals people will adopt from shelters (such as small dogs) that is so real that some urban non-profit shelters “cherry pick” high-interest pets from low-traffic rural municipal shelters. “Until there are none, adopt one” doesn’t address the situation, and its one-size-fits all dogma extends to the simple idea that all breeding is the same, and it’s all adding to the problem.
And that’s not true.
There are legitimate — to us, anyway — reasons to be breed dogs, and none of them have to do with profit. Motivation is what sets the responsible, reputable breeder apart from all the others. One of the primary reasons for breeding is the preservation and protection of animals who are truly unique and well-suited to their original function, as well as companionship — call them heritage breeds, if you will.
My original post yesterday explained why responsible, reputable breeders are the only ones who’ll be most affected by AB 1634, and why a simple approach to a complex problem (and I laid out the problem) is pointless and punitive.
Most of the discussion since has centered around the point if any breeding can be considered worthwhile. We believe it is, because we honestly believe in protecting and preserving the breeds we love. This very idea runs counter to the purest animal-rights belief that we should have no domestic animals at all, by the way. (Did that surprise you? Because that is indeed the aim of some in the animal rights community, who view keeping pets as “exploitive” and are very much behind these Trojan horse pieces of legislation. They get the support of tired, frustrated animal rescue workers and people who just love pets but don’t know the animal-rights agenda behind these drives. Who could be against “Healthy Pets”? Would you support “No Pets”? Because that’s what some want, and you need to know that.)
The people who say “a breeder is a breeder is a breeder” keep saying it’s all about money, that all breeders care about is making money.
They completely miss the point. It ain’t about money at all, not for us.
And now, bringing up from comments, Christie’s response to a critic who can’t get beyond the “money” and the “marketplace.” His points are in italics. Hers made me cry, no doubt because I’ve known all the animals she writes about:
All breeders have the same thing in common. They breed to produce a hopelessly narrow and restrictive set of traits, then dump their culls into a market already flooded with pets.
What is a “cull”? I’ve never bred a “cull” in my life, nor “dumped” a pet into any “market.”
That means that in order to make room for your culls, some other animal will have to be euthanized.
This is a fallacy. For the last 25 years, dogs have been, as well as my beloved companions, my avocation. I have shown them, field trialed them, and participated in a number of dog-related activities with them. I have had during those years as many as 11 dogs and 6 cats at one time, including dogs not of my breed who were rescues from shelters or in one case, off the streets, and ALL my cats, who were from shelters or off the streets.
If I was not involved in the dog fancy as a breeder and exhibitor, I would never have had 11 dogs. I’d have had two or three - probably the exact same rescue dogs I already had. I would not have replaced my other dogs with more dogs, but with whatever had replaced the avocation. For instance, if I couldn’t have participated in the dog events I was participating in, I’d have probably done something else… maybe horses. But something else.
On the other hand, it’s been my involvement in the dog fancy that led to my involvement with rescue, to my work with the various groups serving animals for whom I have been on boards of directors, volunteer teams (including driving people to the spay/neuter clinics, helping with feral populations, and assisting in developing model barn cat legislation, as well as helping administer a county fund to subsidize spay/neuter). ALL of my involvement in those activities grew out of my involvement and contacts in the show dog world.
You are drawing a distinction that falls apart when you examine it.
My view is anyone who is breeding pets under circumstances where they deem any of the offspring to be unworthy of a forever home under their own roof, is an irresponsible breeder the second they go into a flooded market to place those animals.
Every dog I’ve ever bred is worthy of a forever home under my roof. That doesn’t mean they can’t have a forever home with someone else who loves them, with the contractual agreement as a condition of sale that the dog comes back to me and only me if they can’t keep him or her for any reason in the future, and since I stay in close touch with anyone who has ever had a puppy from me, there is no question of the puppy being unworthy of anything. My puppies are worthy of all the love in the world, and they get it.
If a breeder breeds so much they can’t ensure the happiness of all their dogs, and take them back at any time, they are not being responsible (with the obvious exception of death, natural disaster, etc).
I have a hard time imagining a good pet parent who does not believe their pet is the most handsome, beautiful and wonderful in the world.
That’s because to you its about “beauty” and to a dedicated breeder, it’s about preserving what makes our breeds what they are. It’s about why my dog is not a Labrador retriever, but a Scottish Deerhound. And it’s why you’re missing the point that just because a dog isn’t breeding quality, somehow they aren’t loved. Neither of my current dogs is a breeding quality dog. My dog Raven, who died of osteosarcoma almost two years ago and on whom I spent $14,000 trying to save her, was spayed, unshown, not breeding quality. I loved her like the sun and moon and stars. I still do.
My dog Lillie was shown to her championship but never bred, was spayed, not breeding quality. She slept on my bed every night until she died at 12 and a half, very very old for a giant breed dog. Not a night goes by I don’t remember her and wish she were still there, lying on my feet.
Bran, not neutered but never bred, not breeding quality, not show quality. He died when he was four years old of acute kidney failure. I took him to UC Davis for dialysis and I still cry for him. I guess he was one of those culls.
My little Rosie, a champion, bred (she was, in fact, Bran’s mother) who lived to the oldest age of any deerhound I’ve ever had, 13 and a half, and died just last fall. I miss her every minute, just like I miss all my dogs, champions and mixed breeds off the street, my beautiful shelter dog Colleen who was and always will be my heart dog, and my best in field champion dog Doughal. I loved them all, would have taken a bullet for any of them.
You’re just so completely misguided and wrong, Don. I love my breed so much I can’t bear to see it vanish from the face of the earth. I consider its beauty to be such that it’s worthy of preservation, and I know without a single doubt that my involvement in the dog world, which grew directly out of my being a breeder and lover of the Scottish Deerhound, has saved the lives of more dogs and cats than I have ever imagined breeding.
My dogs have not cost one life. My love for them has inspired me to save many. You really don’t get it, don’t understand what we mean when we say “responsible breeders.” Why we say we’re different. You have no idea.
And if you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Responsible breeders are part of the solution. I know, because I’m both.
Folks, if you don’t get it after that, you never will. But if you do get it, call your Assembly member in Sacramento, and urge a no vote on AB 1634.
Amen Christie, and amen Gina! Some people just never will ‘get it.’ “For instance, if I couldn’t have participated in the dog events I was participating in, I’d have probably done something else… .” “And it’s why you’re missing the point that just because a dog isn’t breeding quality, somehow they aren’t loved. Neither of my current dogs is a breeding quality dog.” And neither are my two, but they are the sunshine in my world, and all the dog events have added so much to my relationship with them, not to mention all the great people I have met along the way.
Comment by Cardima — May 24, 2007 @ 6:09 am
I have purebreds and mixed breeds, show dogs and rescues - I love them all dearly. I just love dogs. My life is dedicated to providing my pets with the best care and loving home environment as I am able to offer. And I neither need nor desire the government dictating how I care for them, how many I can have, etc. I oppose anti-pet legislation in any form.
Comment by slt — May 24, 2007 @ 6:28 am
Christie, I completely understand and you are correct. Responsible breeders are not the reason for the problems and certain breeds and traits would not now exist if not for the dedicated breeders.
The dog I just put down, was a Catahoula Leopard and I had to swear on my honor as a southern woman to get her from the breeder. She was spayed because that was my decision, despite the begging from many people to breed her. Should I decide to get another Catahoula, it is to a breeder I will go and that also is my decision.
Take no lip from someone who does not “get it”.
I know why you feel the way you do, you know why you feel the way you do, if Darwin was right, in about a million years the light will dawn for Don.
Comment by E. Hamilton — May 24, 2007 @ 6:28 am
And by the way, a DNA test of Catahoulas would be of great interest, for they are the only North American domesticated breed, they originated here and the debate on the exact mix of wolf, wardog and indian dog is still hotly debated.
Comment by E. Hamilton — May 24, 2007 @ 6:44 am
Catahoulas are stunning dogs. How fortunate you are to have shared your life with one!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 24, 2007 @ 6:52 am
And Christie - Deerhounds as well. I guess I just love so many of the “big boys” even though my cuddle-baby is a Papillon!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 24, 2007 @ 6:55 am
The AR propagandists have done a commendable job brainwashing the basically canine ignorant in this country against breeders, purebred dogs, and all aspects of the Fancy. People like Don who claim that breeding is the root of all evil are a case in point, and I doubt if anything we can say, even as eloquently and as heartfelt as Christie’s superb piece, will change the minds of such folk.
I knew when I had smoke coming out of my ears last night it was time to quit this blog for the evening before I said things I might regret, and leave it’s fate in Gina’s and Christie’s extremely capable hands.
When the Pet Food scandal first erupted, and I was searching for information on the web, links led me here. One name that leapt out at me was that of Christie Keith. The name was familiar from the sighthound world, and I have visited her Caber Feidh site for the information on holistic care she has posted there. Her presence told me this place would be a cut above your average dog blog. And it IS!
Comment by Deb — May 24, 2007 @ 7:00 am
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 24, 2007 @ 6:52 am
Sunday morning, I woke up for the first time in 30 years without a Catahoula at my side. I have had many Catahoulas and may again because it is almost like I have lost my right hand.
Most Catahoula breeders actively DISCOURAGE certain people from trying to raise one if there is any doubt about the dog handling skills of the person.
They are not easy dogs for an inexperienced owner to deal with. Dogs who can run down a deer, climb trees, have webbed feet and can flat FLY over a 6 foot fence are a teensy bit harder to deal with than a lab or a collie.
Fortunately most people who have Catahoulas are as hard headed as the dogs, so it works out.
Comment by E. Hamilton — May 24, 2007 @ 7:17 am
So many people want “sound byte” answers. And when you can’t provide them, they decide that your arguments lack merit.
But the problem is that the entire situation with dogs (and cats) in this country is a complex one and simply cannot be condensed into a few capsule arguments. Essential information gets lost and/or misinterpreted when you try.
Nevertheless, over the years on some email lists and discussion boards I have participated in, I have engaged in some fairly extended discussions with people on the issues. When I’ve had that opportunity (and I’m talking about discussions that sometimes went on for WEEKS as we explored various nuances of the problem) I”ve had the experience of seeing people begin to “get it”.
For me, it all hangs together logically. And the more I learned about it (the dog fancy, and why that is good for “dogs” as a whole when followed ethically and with proper intention) the more I kept realizing that the logic DOES hold together and DOES make sense.
And it all starts with thinking about the fact that you can only take one of three approaches to the breeding of dogs:
1) Selective breeding
2) Random breeding
or
3) No breeding at all
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 24, 2007 @ 7:18 am
Comment by E. Hamilton — May 24, 2007 @ 7:17 am
“Fortunately most people who have Catahoulas are as hard headed as the dogs, so it works out.”
Now I understand a little better why you are such a fierce warrior in the tainted pet food war!
“Sunday morning, I woke up for the first time in 30 years without a Catahoula at my side. I have had many Catahoulas and may again because it is almost like I have lost my right hand.”
I started crying when I read this. Please know you are in my thoughts in all the losses you have suffered. You are one of the people I have in mind whenever I am telling others about the people I have met on this blog who have lost their beloved companions to poison pet foods. I weep for you and mourn with you. It just tears my heart out.
I met my first Catahoula at a clicker training seminar. The woman conducting the weekend is very dog knowledgeable and told us something about the background and requirements of the breed. This dog was a sweetheart - a bit put off by all the people and the strange surroundings, but clearly very dedicated to his owner.
As you said, NOT a breed for everyone, but a wonderful dog nevertheless.
Again, my thoughts and sympathies are with you in your loss.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 24, 2007 @ 7:28 am
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 24, 2007 @ 7:28 am
I appreciate your kind thoughts. Many years ago, 30 or so, a man who bred Catahoulas, walked up to me and said he had a dog for me. Now, I did not know this man, and had not a clue what a Catahoula was and was a bit taken aback that this man had been watching me work my dogs and thought it odd that he wanted to GIVE me a purebred pup.
The next morning, however, when I was handed a pup that looked like nothing I had ever seen, I found that a stranger knew more than I did, he did have a dog for me.
Comment by E. Hamilton — May 24, 2007 @ 7:51 am
Christie,
I commend you for being a Responsible breeder. I am certain you are not alone in being a Responsible breeder, BUT what about all the irresponsible breeders? The commercial puppy mills and the “backyard breeders” that repeatedly breed their few dogs over and over and over with their “Puppies for Sale” signs hanging on their front fence for months during any one year?
Legislation alone never changes the behavior of the irresponsible, but enforcement of well-crafted laws does make the consequences of being irresponsible unpleasant enough that some people change their behavior. What ACTION can anyone propose to reduce the irresponsible breeding of unwanted animals that are exchanged for money or are “Free to good home”? The responsible breeders are usually names that we read about in dog magazines or see on the internet, but I get the feeling when I drive down streets in many neighborhoods that a lot of breeding is done by people with no concern for the quality of a breed — their only concern is how much money can they get from a sign that lists that breed over the “Puppies for Sale” sign.
Every breed has a rescue group — because every breed has members that are thrown away by irresponsible owners. Tens of thousands of dogs, mixed breeds and purebred, are euthanized yearly for lack of a home. Don’t we have to find ways to reduce the number of puppies as well as increase the number of adoptions?
Comment by Shadepuppy — May 24, 2007 @ 8:13 am
Did I sign a breeder agreement stating if for any reason I cannot keep my dog I would return him to her? - Check.
Was I thoroughly checked out before even being considered to purchase a pup from this breeder? - Also check.
Did I sign my breed’s club contract saying I would not breed before 4 years old and if so, only if he exemplified the recognized breed’s standard responsible breeders have worked so hard to achieve? – Absolutely.
Am I breeder? - No.
Do I pay the city for an intact permit even though it’s financially tough for me while countless others fly under the radar avoiding doing so? – Yes.
Did I neuter my severely hip dysplasic lab by one year old? – You betcha.
Am I someone brand new to conformation & other dog events? - Yes.
Would I like a chance to experience the joy of said events? Am I worried my opportunity may disappear if AB 1634 passes due to not being able to afford to do so with the higher cost of the intact permits, etc.? – Most definitely.
Is my chosen pure bred known for service work ie: 9/11 search & rescue as well as guide dog work allowing non-seeing people a chance to experience a fuller, more independent life? - Yes.
Sure the Labrador Retriever is yet again the AKC’s most popular registered breed. Sure some prefer a less popular breed but does that make the Labrador less of a dog? - No. All pure bred dogs and cats have their qualities to offer. It’s that variety that enriches lives in ways too many to mention.
Will many Labrador’s traits including intelligence and ability to provide personal freedom through service work lessen if AB 1634 passes? - Most likely.
Will more Labradors experience physically painful lives if AB 1634 passes? Definitely.
Think about it. By signing AB 1634 into law, a domino effect will ensue that you may not grasp now, but will undoubtedly affect handicapped people’s lives in detrimental ways too numerous to fathom. Quality of life will decline and lack of independence will result. Less apt dogs for search & rescue will also follow. There are other breeds for this work but the availability of said dogs will greatly decrease probably causing a vital shortage when needed for search & rescue work ie: 9/11.
This is my beginning into conformation, obedience and Canine Good Citizen work. The bond I’ve been able to build and share via training for these events with my 14 month old is beyond describable. Yes, CGC work can be done by other than pure breds, but it’s my way of paying back to the community & something his breed does exceptionally well.
My dog’s sire won the Best of Breed at last year’s Eukanuba in December. In most ways, my dog exemplifies what breeders have strived for years to develop aiming for the best genetics possible. Will I continue to show him? I hope so because I do love the sport and related events. Will I ever breed him? No. Sadly, for all his good traits, there is one non desirable trait I do not want to propagate. As long as he is intact we can show and learn. At some point he will be neutered because he shouldn’t be bred.
My point? Even among those of us who show and love pure breds who are against AB 1634, there exist responsible owners (and breeders) who know when and when not to breed. Not being a breeder, I’m most definitely NOT in this for the money. I AM in this for the love and further development of the breed that stole my heart over 14 years ago.
When the time comes, and I can afford to do so, I plan to rescue a lab from one of my breed’s rescue organizations. When you take on a dog and all the responsibility that care entails, you don’t give him up due to health problems or simply because he has suddenly become “inconvenient”. So many pets end up in shelters for this very reason. So many end up in shelters due to irresponsible breeding. For those of us who ARE responsible, that simply is not an option. I signed on for the DURATION OF MY DOG’S LIVES. Unless I experience a life threatening situation such as cancer, giving up a dog is simply not an option.
For those here who can grasp what we are fighting for, I thank you from the depths of my toes. For those who won’t even try, I beg you to reconsider. At the very least, take a step back and HONESTLY look at this issue from all sides. We are NOT the ones dropping pets at shelters because they suddenly became inconvenient. We are NOT the ones adding to the undesirable pet population. We are NOT denying there exists a problem with the number of unwanted pets in the shelters. We are NOT the people you should be yelling at to STOP THE KILLING. We ARE the ones you should be working together with to find VIABLE solutions. Without a doubt, AB 1634 is NOT the answer. There are other solutions to be found. Instead of wasting time and energy ganging up on one another, wouldn’t it be better to put our hearts & minds together while striving for more workable solutions?
Once undone, it will take years to rebuild the good genetics and traits it has taken years to develop and nurture. I can’t speak for all breeds but I can speak for the Labrador Retriever. If these traits are lost, the lives of those enabled by them as service dogs will suffer a great loss of independence. Do those of you supporting AB 1634 feel comfortable taking that quality of life away from physically challenged people? Perhaps you can look at yourselves in the mirror and feel comfortable doing so, but I for one, simply cannot.
Comment by Ally — May 24, 2007 @ 8:17 am
Shadepuppy … we are in absolute agreement on these irresponsible breeders.
But this bill will NOT affect the breeders you’re talking about. They operate under the radar now, and will continue to be so.
That’s why we say this is a simplistic approach to a complex problem that is hell-bent on targeting people who are NOT AT FAULT.
I wrote last night that the bill is like using Roundup on your entire yard. You’ll kill everything, but the weeds will be the only thing that comes back.
That includes puppy mills, by the way, which as “licensed breeders” are exempt from AB 1634.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 24, 2007 @ 8:18 am
Some people’s mission is to save and propagate heritage rose or vegetable strains. Some folks, like me, do not consider themselves a “collector” of antiques, but rather as merely one in a chain of custodians of historical artifacts of our nation’s history. Some people try against the odds to preserve the genetic purity of certain ancient dog breeds or cattle breeds. It’s all good, and IMO worth doing.
Christie, Gina, others, what are your specific ideas on how truly responsible dog breeders could be certified or licensed (even if it meant jumping through hoops) in a way that would exclude them from the bill’s most hated provisions— while still making a dent in the undeniably serious problem of the unwanted animal population of California? (If this was spelled out in a post already I am sorry I may have overlooked it.) This has been an amazing discussion so far. Your points about the unseen role of AR activists in this bill’s structure and depth is quite interesting.
Comment by elizabeth R. — May 24, 2007 @ 8:21 am
“Would I like a chance” above should read:
“Would I like a chance”
Comment by Ally — May 24, 2007 @ 8:22 am
meant “would I take a chance” = “would I like a chance”.
Must get mor kofee…..
Comment by Ally — May 24, 2007 @ 8:23 am
“Christie, Gina, others, what are your specific ideas on how truly responsible dog breeders could be certified or licensed (even if it meant jumping through hoops) in a way that would exclude them from the bill’s most hated provisions– while still making a dent in the undeniably serious problem of the unwanted animal population of California?”
Comment by elizabeth R. — May 24, 2007 @ 8:21 am
Mandatory spay-neuter laws do not reduce unwanted animal populations. I am opposed to any form of anti-pet legislation.
Comment by slt — May 24, 2007 @ 8:29 am
Reading about the Catahoula’s sends chills down my arms. I dearly love Catahoula’s and have written many stories about them and also have owned Catahoulas. So I can say they are great. One I had was the toughest little guy in the entire world. So tough and strong headed that I had to be very careful when training him - least we ended up at “war” but in the end my gentle treatment and understanding won over his temperment and he just adored me and I him - his name Banjo.
Another Catahoula I owned was mostly blue black with a white neck - her name Cindy Lou, and she was just also the toughest little vixen of a dog and did she love me. Would sleep with her head on my lap and no fence or house could keep her in. I had to watch her like a hawk and she still owns most of my heart.
Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 8:38 am
A bad law is worse than no law and considering that it is apparently OK to sell poison labeled as premium pet food in California and face no consequences, I think that there are bigger melacatfish that need frying.
Yes, there are too many unwanted animals. I don’t see any “free puppy or kitten” ads at my church or my neighborhood because I GOT IN THEIR FACE about it until it stopped.
It is NOT acceptable to me and I will not tolerate it.
I did not need a law to do the right thing.
But it seems all the laws in the world won’t make some people do right.
You CAN, however make it mighty unpleasant for them to do wrong.
This law will neither inspire the right thing nor prevent the wrong.
Comment by E. Hamilton — May 24, 2007 @ 8:45 am
I love the pictures of your deerhound Christie - soooo cute and woodsy looking. We need a world with different dog breeds - we just do.
We also need a world where people stop breeding as a business and are not allowed to overbreed -the stupid puppy mills.
I sure hope we can have both. That is my wish -to save the Catahoulas, Deerhounds, and my beloved Dobies, not to mention Walker Coooonhounds that I too love so much and all the other treasured breeds.
Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 8:48 am
Here’s an idea that just popped into my fogged must-get-a-rolling-IV-of-caffeine state…..
What if pet food companies, aside from COOL and viable changes to rebuild our trust were to consider making sizable, regular donations to animal shelters? I know what I may be suggesting equals “when pigs fly”, but considering all the pets who’ve died because of this fiasco especially when many pet food companies KNEW there existed problems with tainted food BEFORE going public……is it realy such a far fetched idea to even suggest?
It won’t answer all the problems over populated animal shelters pose, but it couldn’t hurt either. Pet food company “plants” - you reading this? Think about it. You currently don’t have much to stand on in regaining our trust. Why not be the first to step forward and implement such a proposal?
Comment by Ally — May 24, 2007 @ 8:50 am
P.S. I also like the idea of having more low coast spading and neutering available, and also maybe some low cost neighborhood access to vet care - it seems very expensive to go to the vet these days - some charge $49 a visit here in California - and lab work is in the $100’s.
Training centers too is the key. I’m sure that is why that pup I rescued was turned loose - he is a handful. Now, he knows sit, down, stay, and is learning come. Otherwise he doesn’t know anything about “house” manners and to get his way he howls - and I’m a tough cookie and don’t give in easily - and still he is difficult. He will be trained though. Even dogs that I resuce I take full responsibility for and will find their owners, or get vet care, and train until they are “really” trained and find good homes for.
The easy solution is to dump them at the pound and easy is most always just wrong.
Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 8:56 am
First: I’m opposed to mandatory pediatric spay/neuter. I’d rather see higher cost licensing for intact animals, cheap spay/neuter, etc. I am also canine ignorant. ;)
I have to say, though… I really like Siamese cats. We had one when I was a kid, and he was a great cat—smart, outgoing, sweet… I don’t have one now, because I can’t justify spending that much money on a cat with all the alley cats in the pound needing homes. If I ever get one, it’ll be from Siamese rescue, possibly an adult.
I would also never breed Siamese. I doubt we’re in danger of there being a world without Siamese any time soon. ;) We’re more in danger of having a world glutted with “kitten mill” Siamese. For the record, the solution to that is not no more Siamese breeding but better Siamese breeding, but I doubt the general public sees the difference. It’s the curse of the popular breed.
No, there are more than enough people willing to provide homes to Siamese (and not all of them good, hence rescue). On the other hand, my beautiful, glossy little black kitties… Did you know that black cats are more likely to be euthanized in shelters because people don’t find them to be as cute as other cats? That’s just crazy talk. Black kitties are adorable. That’s why I have four. I think my cats are the smartest, sweetest, prettiest cats in the whole world.
There’s pretty much two things a person in my position can do, and that’s either support a good, responsible Siamese breeder or take the unwanted (those aren’t mutually exclusive, but I do have limited house space). I’m going to have to go with the unwanted. I’m a very experienced cat owner who’s had problem cats before. I’m a much better choice for a rescue cat than someone who’s less cat-savvy. I can take little hissing, snarling feral kittens that the vet techs are afraid to handle without a big burly second tech holding them down and turn them into pets. Someone less experienced should have the “perfect” pet.
I suppose I’m just not really a Siamese person, however much I like them. I’m an “alley cat” person.
Comment by Katherine — May 24, 2007 @ 9:24 am
In my very humble opinion, the problem is not spaying and neutering. The problem are the owners.
I encounter misbehaving, untrained dogs on a daily basis. Ask me how often I step into a pile of dog-remnants when I walk through my front yard. Or how often, when I do my regular walks in the morning, I meet off-leash dogs (sometimes in packs), running around in the neighborhood alone to do whatever their owners don’t want to deal with. How amusing it is for me to walk in my neighborhood, only to be jumped on by a neighbor’s dog who is depositing hair and saliva all over me, tries to mate with my leg and stuffs the nose into my private parts…
Instead of a mandatory spay & neuter law, how about a very mandatory ‘dog-license’: you have to pass an obedience training with your dog, the dog will be marked so that - if the dog gets ‘lost’ or roams free and causes damage you will be held financially responsible, and combine that with a points system where you can’t own a dog for a certain amount of time if your points tally is too high…
Please understand that I love dogs - but I’m developing some sort of an allergy towards certain dog owners (who, unfortunately, seem to be the majority).
It simply does not fill me with joy if some half-calf is galloping towards me, with the owner dragged behind him and, barely audible over the barking, this owner tries to insure me that the dog is ‘friendly’, and I should not be afraid. It is not that I am afraid (snortle!), I know my way around dogs, *but how does the owner know?* This owner obviously is no ‘Alpha’, if s/he were an ‘Alpha’, s/he would emit an order, the dog would obey and I would be thoroughly enjoying the encounter.
(climbs from soapbox)
Comment by MaKo — May 24, 2007 @ 9:33 am
My Treeing Walker Coonhound is trained to walk off-leash next to me even in Old Sacramento. He disturbs no one and trots along beside me. He is trained - he is the S&R dog. He goes everywhere and distrubs nothing.
Taking my dogs to the river is wrought with problems - where I meet sometimes a pack of six dogs bounding towards me as I yell no, stop your dogs. I don’t like it one bit and when I have my big red Dobie, Dobie doesn’t like it either and the inconsiderate people with their many dogs just don’t give a rats fanny about laws or what’s right or that my dog doesn’t like it - not my big Red.
Problem people - and then problem dogs.
Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 9:49 am
MaKo wrote:
In my very humble opinion, the problem is not spaying and neutering. The problem are the owners.
Yes!
The reason I thought I hated dogs until I was 19 was because of ill-behaved, uncontrolled beasts who chased me as a child. Even the friendly ones scared me by jumping up on me and almost knocking me down.
I’m not sure what we can do about bad owners (dog AND cat) aside from educating them.
Comment by Katherine — May 24, 2007 @ 9:57 am
Have any of you in favor of AB 1634 given any thought to the following:
With less pure breds and higher costs of breeding licenses, what do you suppose is most likely to result? Breeding on the QT (and not the responsible kind) producing even greater numbers of unwanted dogs. Black market pure breds where breeders won’t have time to properly check out responsible owners able to provide good homes and health care. Guess what? Many of those dogs are going to get dropped at shelters too when improperly checked out buyers don’t have the wherewithal to keep or care for these dogs.
Another thing to consider. More propagation of “designer dogs” with promises of generating lower allergy causing and other unproven whatnot dogs when instead, these very same cross breeds are most likely to propagate all the bad genetics responsible breeders have strived to eradicate. Know where many of these designer dogs are going to end up? Yup, you guessed it: animal shelters.
Think I’m nuts? Think it through. Then think it through again. These are only a few highlights of what you can expect if AB 1634 passes in its current form.
Then go explain to physically challenged people why there will be less service dogs available at an affordable cost not only to handicapped people, but also for organizations like the Guide Dogs of America to attain and afford to train. The cost of pure breds will become so high many who rely on them for their daily existence will not be able to afford them.
Nor will respected breeders and clubs have as much available funds to donate to their breed’s rescue organizations. They’ll be too strapped trying to afford exorbitant costs of breeder’s licenses and intact permits. If you don’t think pure bred owners, breeder’s and breed clubs donate to their breed’s rescue organizations, think again. Better yet, stop seeing this from only your side and educate yourself as those of us opposing AB 1634 have done.
No one from the pure bred side denies there is a problem. I doubt breeders would even deny that some pure bred’s original traits have been bred out from what made them originally the dog they were. But if the trade off is better overall traits and genetics in support of breeding healthier breeds, then you bet I’m all for it.
IMO, the pros far out weigh the cons. But so many are too quick to jump on the bandwagon without taking the time to educate themselves why such a poorly assembled proposal as AB 1634 is not going to solve the over population problem.
Learn the facts. Think it through. Because I guarantee if AB 1634 passes in it’s current state, we will definitely see a rise in the animal shelter population AND dangerous black market breeding.
Comment by Ally — May 24, 2007 @ 10:15 am
FYI and in addendum to my previous post:
I personally know of several reputable breeders who donate healthy, quality labradors to the Guide Dogs of America. If their breeding and intact licenses increase to an exorbitant amount, consider the fact that they will be less inclined or able to donate otherwise sound breedable dogs. Those who rely on these dogs to perform even the most mundane of daily tasks may sadly find themselves without a means to do so. There simply won’t be the amount of trainable dogs to meet the demand. This is truly a travesty in the making when one considers that other avenues of reducing over animal population can be achieved.
Comment by Ally — May 24, 2007 @ 10:22 am
comment by Mako 9:33am
Mako - you don’t like dogs stuffing their noses in your private parts?? smile, smile
Comment by VJ — May 24, 2007 @ 10:35 am
Yes, people will be breeding and selling out of the trunk of their cars or dumping what they can’t sell in fields or even worse drowning the animals.
What to do with big dogs? Train them. Spend time with them and train them.
Little dogs can be very worrisome, and what we will see in shelters as our population ages is a bunch of untrained unmanageable vicious little dogs. Because for the most part, owners with these little dogs let them rule the roost (which one can’t do with a big dog).
I’ve had more problems with little dogs when I take my dogs out than I have from “big” dogs.
Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Ha, ha - well the nose goes there first - now that brought a chuckle.
Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 10:42 am
I don’t care big dog, small dog. I don’t like ‘untrained dog’ and their owners.
Astonishingly (for the owners in question) *their dogs obey me*, usually instantly and without question.
The unfortunate thing is that the first impulse to a dog-onslought is to punish the dog instead of beating up the owner.
That is the point where swearing in a dangerously-sounding language has advantages, but it does not remove the problem.
Now a lot (A LOT) of those inconsiderate dog owners who buy a puppy (from who knows who) because they saw this sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet little puppy in some sticky-sweet ad on TV buy those dogs without a long-term plan, inkling of responsibility, or any care about the breeder, the breed or other essentials.
You have to wait a couple of days before you can buy a gun, but you can buy a (pitbull) from a producer without a thought, on a moment’s notice.
Therefore, I conclude: initiate a dog-license. Insert a ‘heavy fines, proceeds go to animal shelters’ system for offenders, with a points system that makes it (financially) impossible for an irresponsible person to own a dog - and the puppy mills POOOOOFF will disappear.
Sounds easy, and is probably impossible to do.
Comment by MaKo — May 24, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Oh, I always yell at the owners. Big time. I don’t fuss at their dogs.
Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 11:28 am
I have a big problem with no breeding - but I have a problem with some supposed “responsible breeders” who are insistent on magnifying traits in my favorite breed (pekinese) that are simply bad for the poor little things’ health!
Conformation has gotten ridiculous for this 2000 year old breed. The coat should not be suffocating. The head should not be so big that natural whelping is impossible. The nose should not be so short that they can’t breathe!
Honestly, every year when Westminster is shown on TV I get more and more disturbed by what I am seeing from even supposedly “responsible breeders” who are over exaggerating certain breed traits.
Make no mistake, I value purebred pekinese. They are nothing like any other dog breed. (Alpha does not work the same way with this breed, trust me, this is NOT a beginner’s breed.) They have memories longer than an elephants and are always beyond stubborn. They are royalty and they know it.
Now, I have never in my life been afraid of even the growliest, most vicious peke. I had a fear biter, but we knew to keep her from others, she had had a traumatic event plus physiological issues that caused this, but, she was, otherwise the sweetest dog you would ever know with her family. (In my experience, 9 times out of 10, the bite recipient has done something to provoke the bite.)
This lovely, lovely stubborn, royal breed is in danger as much from “responsible breeders” as puppy mills. I’m sorry, but it is true. A pekinese should be able to breathe and whelp, and should think that it can take down a deer. (As my father says, “They are awful big for their size.”) But, hey, I’m just a lover of the breed who finds the current climate in conformation loathsome. I don’t think I’m alone in that.
Pax,
MLO
Comment by MLO — May 24, 2007 @ 11:48 am
MLO - I agree totally. And that is my point when I posted about Breeders caring about a dog that shows well or works in the ring and not about what enhances the natural attributes of that breed.
Like Coooonhounds that are not independent or whatever including those physical traits that are exaggerated to the point that the poor animal suffers but they earn points in the ring. So very sad.
Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
re: Comment by MaKo — May 24, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Astonishingly (for the owners in question) *their dogs obey me*, usually instantly and without question.
Astonishingly for me, misbehaving dogs obey ME now. Me. Kitty woman, who’s never had a dog and used to be terrified of them.
I don’t know about oppressive licensing fees, although I’d like licensing fees to reward spay/neuter. But people with bad dogs need to realize that their pets blacken the eye of dogdom. The problem is, of course, that people who are irresponsible enough to let their dogs chase little kids until they cry, kill cats, or (like in the case of a downstairs neighbor) take a big chunk out of a jogger’s calf aren’t responsible enough to care that they’re making things worse for responsible dog owners.
Comment by Katherine — May 24, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Re: Comment by MLO — May 24, 2007 @ 11:48 am
I agree, too. I think the current Siamese type is too extreme, and don’t get me started on the “Peke-face” Persian.
Comment by Katherine — May 24, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Idiots don’t care who they hurt or who their dogs hurt.
Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
No, Linda, they really don’t. Which is why I think most of the time it’s not a dog problem at all. It’s an owner problem.
Comment by Katherine — May 24, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Hey, I could tell you stories about being chased and almost killed by a chow mix and the owner’s didn’t believe me even though I had witnesses.
Owners think their dogs can do no wrong even when presented with evidence otherwise. Ugh!
Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Sorry, almost killed was an exaggeration - it was almost attacked and would probably have been almost killed.
Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
I know. My former downstairs neighbor’s dog did literally take a chunk out of a jogger’s calf. Animal control seized the dog and was going to destroy him, but the owner showed up and cried and said he was really a good dog and promised to make him wear a muzzle whenever he was outside, so they relented and let him take the vicious beast home.
He didn’t make the dog wear a muzzle, of course.
That dog was just plain wrong in the head. Whenever the guy went out of town he’d leave the dog locked in his room and his roommates would throw food in and slam the door because they were afraid of him. He also killed a litter of kittens and used to sneak up behind people with his teeth bared, going for the backs of their legs.
The dog was just plain wrong in the head, but I blame his owner.
Comment by Katherine — May 24, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Oh, well I wonder if the owner laughed at the dog for his misdeed, thinking it was funny, or teased the dog to “sig um” or something like that. The dog obviously didn’t want other people around - probably for some good reason we don’t understand. Poor Dog living in this people hell - its only recourse to snap at calf muscles. Throwing food in and not really training the dog - stupid and tragic and yes it’s the owner’s fault for not training the dog or at least not taking proper care of it. Poor dog and poor people in it’s reach.
Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
“the contractual agreement as a condition of sale that the dog comes back to me and only me if they can’t keep him or her for any reason in the future, “
I have a real problem with this attitude among breeders. A 7 year old dog who has come into a situation where he can no longer be with the original owner - through illness, divorce, economic hardship, etc. - may have an option that is better for the dog than the disruption of going back to a breeder’s den. Breeders always have multiple dogs, and some dogs are NOT social with other dogs. Just like some humans are loners, some dogs are too.
In my mind, the dog is as much my responsibility as any other member of my family and is now a “lastname insert here” who has the full benefit of the entire familial network. It is much less disruptive for an animal to be with a family member or close friend who has always been “around” the animal. In my mind it is rather conceited to think only the original breeder is qualified to select a proper home.
Thank God I have not been in that position, but my current pup is a rescue, and if anything happens, I know who I can rely on to take care of him - just as my parents know that I will step up if anything happens and their dog needs care. (Of course, in her case half of the people who know her would want her and fully 95% would be wonderful peke parents.)
I’ve known my dog since he was a puppy, but the circumstances in his previous owner’s life changed dramatically. Smokey was never all that happy in the same house as his brother (same litter). He is a one dog kind of dog. It would be excessively cruel to put him in a multi-dog environment. Thus, my friend, knowing that I was preparing to get married and had just moved into my husband’s and my home, were perfect candidates. Once my husband met Smokey, it was love at first site. (This is his first dog, always had cats before.)
Now, part of me understands why breeders want to say and do this, but it smacks of patronizing high-handedness if you have thoroughly vetted the person acquiring the dog. The question should be the same one you ask someone about their children - or other human dependents - when it comes to future care if that person is no longer able to care for the animal. If the person cannot produce a plan of any sort, leave the option to bring the animal back open, but requiring it is just plain wrong.
I don’t care how well you think you know the pup, only the people who live with that dog know that dog well enough to know whether a new situation is right for the dog - at least if they were well-vetted to begin with. Now, if the future dog parents have not been vetted to the degree that you are comfortable with their decision on the dog’s care, you shouldn’t be selling to them. Period.
Pax,
MLO
Comment by MLO — May 24, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
Any dog I find a home for can always come back to me but for sure I want it never to go to a shelter or the county pound. But once the animal is out the door - how does one control the future even with the best of contracts - people move and life changes - so much of the dog’s fate depends upon the good intentions of his caregivers.
Comment by Linda — May 25, 2007 @ 6:37 am
Some have questioned why breeders would object to this bill when they can get a special “license” to keep intact dogs. Read the bill. The dog must meet certain criteria…it must be shown during certain times, and most objectionable…someone who gets this license gives up a basic constitutional right to allow animal control onto their property at any time to “inspect” the conditions under which they are kept. Now I have a few dogs that once were shown and which I have not bred, but might as they mature. They often finish at 9 months, too young to show as a champion but also too young to breed. They wuold not fit the bill’s criteria.
Plus, under this bill, if I have a license for an intact dog, now I have to allow the authorities to search my home without a warrant at their leisure if for some reason my neighbor decides I have a rusty faucet that they are drinking water from, etc.?
Why would I give up a constitutional right that every other citizen enjoys, including ranchers, farmers and other breeders of other animals? Even your basic drug dealer has more rights.
I won’t. If this bill passes I am moving out of CA. That is it last straw. I have saved dozens of pets, my husband founded and leads a shelter auxiliary that has raised funds to provide needed medical aid and facilities; I have trained new “pet” owners so they can keep their unruly pets rather than dump them when they get too rowdy; and I have funded counless rescue organizations. If these groups can’t recognize the contribution our purebred fanciers provide, then I quit. I have been called names and accosted by groups that have come to me in the past for money and support. So now we know how much that counts for. I will move to a state, as much as I hate to leave, where I can live in some dgree of privacy and independence without someone who knows better than I do about my business telling me what to do.
Oh yes…can I also share data that shows the detrimental effects of early spay neuter? Ok..that is a post for later.
Comment by Sandy — May 25, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Sandy,
I would move out of CA too if this bill passes. I am a native CA and I love CA but I refuse to submit to insanity.
Comment by Linda — May 26, 2007 @ 6:11 am
Katherine wrote:
I have to say, though… I really like Siamese cats. We had one when I was a kid, and he was a great cat—smart, outgoing, sweet… I don’t have one now, because I can’t justify spending that much money on a cat with all the alley cats in the pound needing homes. If I ever get one, it’ll be from Siamese rescue, possibly an adult.
—————
Meezers rock! As does Siamese Rescue (www.meezer.com), which saves thousands of pointed cats, some of whom are ‘typey’ and some of whom aren’t. (Such as my Supreme Grand Master Household Pet raggie-wannabee Humphrey, whom they saved just because he had red points and was slated to be killed.)
If you want to hang out with meezer folks, many of whom do rescue, come to ‘Planet Meezer’ (planetmeezer.com). You’d be most welcome there!
Comment by siameezer — June 9, 2007 @ 8:46 pm