HSUS speaker out
By Christie Keith
August 3, 2007
As Gina blogged last week, the board of the Dog Writers Association of America voted to back out of its participation in the Cat Writers Association annual conference because CWA had lined up the HSUS’ Wayne Pacelle as its keynote speaker — and quite a few folks in CWA weren’t too happy about it, either.
Many of the members of both organizations are responsible breeders or exhibitors of dogs and cats. Given that the event is being held in California and HSUS had recently spearheaded the campaign for AB 1634, a California mandatory spay/neuter law that many felt targeted responsible breeders while doing nothing to reduce puppy mills, unethical breeders, or shelter death rates, this was probably not the best year for Pacelle to be on the podium.
Today, CWA president Nancy Peterson announced that Pacelle would no longer be addressing the members, and that there would be, this year, no speaker at the annual banquet.
I had planned on being there either way. Despite the fact that I don’t agree with HSUS on this issue and, in fact, quite a few others, I don’t think a speaker being controversial is a reason not to attend their speech. I’ve been known to enjoy a good catfight. Still, I hope it’s a chance for the dogs and cats to kiss and make up, and that DWAA will vote to restore its support of the event, which is in November.
Cat fights are OK if it is a fair fight. With HSUS you are fighting pure propaganda and emotion, they can not fight with facts, so this would have beeen a waste of your time.
They don’t care what we think, they want the world to be the world according to H$U$.
Comment by Zuzana Kukol — August 3, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
Kudos to the organizations involved. HSUS needs to be exposed for the anti-pet anti-responsible owner, anti-responsible breeder organization that it is. It is NOT an animal welfare organization and it has no problem showing multiple faces to the public to draw in money. AB 1634 was a major threat to responsible hobbiest/breeders, but perhaps it is also an opportunity to expose Animal Rights organizations (YES, HSUS is an animal rights organization) for the anti-pet, control-freak, extremists that they are.
If true animal welfare advocates can keep up the pressure and exposure, this may mean the end of the animal rights extremists.
Comment by Margaret Cleek — August 3, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
The CWA did the right thing in cancelling Pacelle. Giving a platform to people who hate animals and those who own them is NOT what ethical associations that are built around animals should be doing.
Jan
Comment by Jan — August 3, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
I would suggest asking Patti Strand from NAIA, a great speaker for Animal Welfare
Comment by Vicki Fratrick — August 4, 2007 @ 9:37 am
I prefer not to listen to Patty Strand. She is too far the other way from Pacelle. I love MY cats..and all animals, even cows, etc There must be somebody who is a happy medium. Or I do not want to have a speaker.
happy ca. cats rule!
Comment by VERONIQUE HERNANDEZ — August 4, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Likewise David Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom. Very dynamic speaker, and doesn’t take guff from the animal-liberation crazies.
Comment by Frank Conley — August 4, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
“Controversial” is OK. Dishonest and twisted are not. Wayne Pacelle is dishonest and twisted. That is sufficient reason to refuse to attend his speeches or to have him as a speaker.
Comment by TomK — August 5, 2007 @ 3:50 am
Comment by VERONIQUE HERNANDEZ — August 4, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
“She (Patty Strand) is too far the other way from Pacelle.”
Agreed. I was accused of being an “AR activist” by one of her “disciples” just because I didn’t agree with everything she said.
Extremism in ANY form is not a good thing . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 5, 2007 @ 8:24 am
Good for you for not having Pacelle speak. What a traviste that would have been.
Suggestion: Why not have PetPac come and speak?
Comment by Jean — August 5, 2007 @ 11:14 am
I second the observation about Martosko from CCF. Is it too late to get someone like him to replace Pacelle? If someone who knows Nancy Peterson well would suggest it …
Comment by Carl Winters — August 5, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
I’m really, really uncomfortable with any organization taking a stand in this manner. I *hate* that DWAA wouldn’t support the CWA conference, for whatever reason. We need to hear all viewpoints — and those who are journalists should demand no less.
Comment by Susan — August 5, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Comment by Susan — August 5, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
“We need to hear all viewpoints—and those who are journalists should demand no less.”
And again - a far more acceptable way to do so would have been to include him among a discussion panel representing an array of viewpoints.
One definition of keynote speaker is “At political or industrial conventions and expositions, the keynote address or keynote speech is delivered to set the underlying tone and summarize the core message or most important revelation of the event.” Do you really think what Wayne Pacelle might have had to say could be represented as the “core message” of the Cat Writers Association?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 5, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
David Martosko?? If you want a liar, then yes, get him. But after all of the talk about fact-twisting I wouldn’t have thought that TWO people would have supported him here! He’s been forced on more than one occasion to retract statements he’s made that turned out to be just not true. CCF is a lobbying group for big tobacco, alcohol, the restaurant industry, ranchers and the dairy industry. They’re lobbyists. Nothing more. And they certain;y don’t lobby for cats!
Comment by Mark — August 6, 2007 @ 11:39 am
It is high time that the HSUS agenda came home to bite them. As animal lovers it does not mean we are all vegans. Chickens also need care and attention. W
Comment by Anthony Saville — August 6, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
No one who calls themselve an animal welfarist should support dog or cat breeding of any kind. How many millions do we have to kill each year for people to realize that breeding animals isn’t consistent with a concern for their welfare? Euthanasia is the biggest killer of cats in this country — no other diseases even come close. If you have time to breed and show cats, then you have time to change your “hobby” to something productive — like TNR programs, low-cost spay/neuter clinics, and fostering strays. Stop kidding yourself that those who support mandatory spay/neuter are anti-pet extremists. We’re just willing to look at the big picture, admit the reality, and try to do something about it. The pleasure or profit people get from breeding cats is a small sacrifice for saving animals’ lives.
Comment by Julie — August 6, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Julie, dogs and cats from responsible breeders do not wind up in shelters. If they are sold as pets, they get spayed/neutered, and so do not contribute to the pet overpopulation problem. Responsible breeders do not make a profit; they barely break even, because they’re doing all that stuff you don’t believe they’re doing or don’t care about: health testing, studying the genetic history of the breed and of the animals they’re breeding, providing good veterinary care to the the mother and the offspring, screening potential buyers so that the animals wind up in GOOD, RESPONSIBLE home, providing advice and assistance to the new pet owner so that training hurdles are merely hurdles to get over and not catastrophes that result in the animal being abandoned, rehomed, or put to sleep.
Many responsible breeders are involved in rescue, foster, and in the case of cats TNR programs.
Over the forty years since I got my very first pet, I’ve had cats and dogs from shelters, and cats and dogs from breeders. They all deserved their lives, and they all deserved good, loving homes.
And none of them contributed to the shelter overpopulation problem once they entered my home.
If you don’t want to be regarded as an extremist, don’t rant at us like one.
Comment by Lis — August 6, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Julie, if every shelter pet was adopted, it would account for about 30% of all owned animals. There is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for reputable breeders to stop breeding. Opposition such as yours is not based on reality.
If you really want to make this happen, go support the No Kill Advocacy Center, whose programs could actually get us to no kill of adoptable and treatable animals.
Railing against responsible breeders doesn’t help. And mandatory spay neuter, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, actually HURTS these efforts.
Comment by Sally — August 6, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
“Agreed. I was accused of being an “AR activist” by one of her “disciples” just because I didn’t agree with everything she said.
Extremism in ANY form is not a good thing . . . . . .”
Only Ms Strand speaks for Ms Strand. Its a sad day when those who fight a hateful, destructive movement that makes no sense are called extremists. ARs want compromise because if we compromise with them we only lose more.
Good for the CWA for not including one of the more reprehensible people in America, Wayne Pacelle.
Comment by Al — August 6, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
Here’s what happened, Al:
Remember those cute little kitten and puppy stamps that were put out for a while to raise awareness of spay/neuter? Well, I was on an email breed list where someone mentioned buying a bunch of them because they were so cute. Whereupon the woman I mentioned in an earlier post (the one I characterized as a Patty Strand disciple) started railing about how they were propaganda and no one who supported purebred dogs should be buying these stamps.
I spoke up questioning this, because I just didn’t see how keeping the American public thinking about the benefits of spay/neuter for their pets was such a bad thing. And all of a sudden, this woman was attacking *me*, culminating in her calling me an AR (pretty much the worst insult there was on that list) and all because I wouldn’t go along with her wholesale condemnation of the kitten/puppy spay neuter stamps.
So - what was that you were saying about her not being an extremist?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 6, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Thank you goes to the Dog Writers for showing their insight and intelligence ! Many years ago,the HSUS was an organization worthy of our respect.Sadly this is no longer true.Its time for us to take back control of that leash and muzzle HSUS.
The DWAA’s decision has I hope,shown the way to block Pacelle and his ilk from obtaining any more public ink at the cost of our rights.
I personally cannot comprehend why the Cat Fanciers would evern consider this man and his now very public mandate of spay and neuter for this conference.
The Dog Legislation Council of Canada (“DLCC”) is a Canada-wide non-profit organization dedicated to promoting responsible dog ownership, assisting provincial and municipal governments to develop effective licensing and enforcement legislation, and educating the public regarding dog bite prevention. The DLCC does not support any legislation that targets a breed instead of the real problem – the irresponsible owner.
Comment by LeeAnn O'Reilly — August 7, 2007 @ 8:51 am
OTHER Pat, the experience you describe was NOT with Patti Strand, it was with someone else. It’s neither accurate nor fair to assume that Patti would have reacted that way.
It’s ridiculous to assume that Patti is an “extremist” based on an experience you had with a different person. I know for a fact that Patti advocates voluntary spay/neuter programs. I also know that she doesn’t toss around insults like you seem to assume.
“Extremism in ANY form is not a good thing”… nor is jumping to conclusions about people based on irrelevant information.
BTW, it’s “Patti” and not “Patty”.
Comment by Laura — August 7, 2007 @ 10:22 am
You weren’t there, you don’t know.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 7, 2007 @ 11:30 am
To elaborate a bit - I pretty much equate the beginning of AKC’s slide downward to “the dark side” with Patti Strand and the High Volume Breeders Committee Report that basically started the regrettable AKC pattern of getting in bed with such puppy producers as JB Hunte and so on:
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/about/.....finalA.pdf
I just cannot buy into that “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em!” mentality - especially when it is the best interest of our dogs that is at stake.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 7, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
OTHER Pat, what has that got to do with the spay/neuter stamps program we were discussing?
Comment by Laura — August 7, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
That’s where it started. What I posted was only a portion of my overall interaction with this woman over a period of years. One of the “events” during that period of time was the publication of the High Volume Breeder Report of which Patti Strand was an author and which this woman supported wholeheartedly. I refer to her as “Patti Strand disciple” because she continually quoted her and referenced her positions and articles and so forth as being the only “right” opinions and positions to hold. And she also served with her on certain committees which we heard about over and over again, so there was a direct relationship at play, as well.
This started becoming especially problematic with the publishing of the High Volume Breeders Report, and the fact that many of us could not support it. But because it was AKC, and because it was Patti Strand, this woman attacked anyone who criticized AKC’s “new” position - calling them “anti-breeding” and telling them they were “on the side of the AR’s”.
The stamp issue came up at some point during all of this, and this woman had it pretty much laid out as an “AR conspiracy” which we were supporting if we bought the stamps (even though the stamps were not raising funds for anyone but the Post Office).
There was NO middle ground for this woman. And yes - she cited Patti Strand frequently in her tirades which is - again - a big part of what went into forming my opinion of Patti Strand and AKC’s descent towards “the dark side”.
It’s kind of hard to encapsulate all that went on during that time in this format. But believe me - it left a firm impression, and a lasting one.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 7, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
Well, Other Pat, I do understand where you’re coming from with this one. I’ve been called “the enemy” by just about everyone on every side of any animal issue.
A friend of mine won a Pulitzer Prize for writing on primate research. Her newspaper work was later turned into the book, “The Monkey Wars.” She was excoriated by all people on all sides — complimented, too — which I guess means she thought for herself and saw and reported all sides of the issue.
I try to do the same. Much as I cannot buy into animal-rights extremism, I also will not get in bed with puppy mills and other animal abusers in the “you’re either with us or agin’ us” style.
Sorry, but in some cases I’m with you AND agin’ you depending on where you are. I have my own mind, and I use it. And I listen to all.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 7, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
OTHER Pat, I appreciate the explanation, but it still sounds to me like you are attacking Patti Strand primarily based on the actions of someone else. IMO, that is not fair.
Comment by Laura — August 7, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
OTHER Pat — I think if you were to know Patti Strand personally you would find that she also thinks for herself and listens to all sides. I know Patti very well and she forms her opinions based on as much information as possible from all sides.
It’s too bad the woman you had the experience with approached her issue with you in the dysfunctional way she approached it. And, yes, it also sounds to me as if you’re judging Patti and the NAIA on the rants of someone else.
It is very important to see the far reaching and overall goals of the Animal Rights movement. The movement uses our love and compassion for animals — our emotion for the suffering of animals — to advance it’s agenda.
I, people like me, the NAIA and Patti Strand among others are fighting a hateful, destructive movement called Animal Rights Extremism. It’s true the ARs want compromise. The AR’s are on the very far left. People like Patti and myself represent mainstream America — we are the middle. Any compromise with AR’s from the middle is movement to the left.
Comment by David Calderwood — August 8, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
I am absolutely *against* the AR agenda to end all ownership of animals. I don’t know how many times I have to say that.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 8, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
By the way, does NAIA still include commercial dog breeders among its membership?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 8, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
OTHER Pat, as far as I know, the NAIA doesn’t refuse membership to people based on their profession. When I signed up to be an NAIA member, there were no questions about what I do for a living.
Comment by Laura — August 8, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Well, they certainly don’t condemn the practice of commercial puppy farming. From http://www.naiaonline.org/abou.....commercial:
“NAIA notes that some commercial kennels are state of the art facilities producing healthy, well-socialized puppies to sell to pet stores or directly to the public.”
And this is the organization that Patti Strand is National Director of.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 8, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
OTHER Pat — Indeed, it is amazing what one can learn if one seeks out the facts with an open mind. Sometimes our preconceived notions don’t quite mesh up with the facts, and reality is more complex and nuanced than we’d assumed.
For example, when I started digging into the veterinary medical literature relating to spay/neuter health impacts on dogs, I had a pre-conceived notion that was probably shared with most responsible dog owners in America… that s/n is overwhelmingly a huge win for canine health. I’d done my homework. I’d read the many “spay/neuter fact sheets” on the Internet and elsewhere. In truth, the reason I went to the “horse’s mouth”, the veterinary medical research literature, was to find scientific ammunition to convince my husband to neuter his then 1 year old male dog. I figured this would be a slam dunk, since there didn’t appear to be any debate on this subject.
Turns out that what the veterinary medical literature has to say is rather different than what we’ve been led to believe. I’m talking mainstream veterinary medical literature and respected, mainstream researchers. Indeed, what we’ve been taught — while having a basis in fact — is extremely biased in what it leaves out. We are not told about the downside health risks of s/n. Conventional s/n wisdom also contains some downright false or baseless assertions. Bottom line, what we’ve been taught does not fairly reflect what the veterinary medical literature contains.
So anyway, I wrote what I’d learned into a paper, as a summary of the published research. It is aimed at both regular dog owners and veterinarians. I published it on my breed club’s website. Patti Strand found out about it, we discussed it, and she asked if NAIA could host it on their website. That’s how I first hooked up with Patti and the NAIA.
What I’ve come to learn from many hours of 1-on-1 conversations with Patti Strand [most of them involving the fight against AB 1634] is how dedicated she is to accurately conveying the facts in support of animal welfare. I don’t know about others, but for someone like myself with a background in science and who expects to see our actions and policies based on the facts, that is the “middle ground” in the animal welfare spectrum. Policies based on an objective application of the facts is an agenda I can relate to. There may be other animal organizations out there that are as scrupulous about the facts as the NAIA, but I sure don’t know who they are.
Comment by Laura — August 8, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
Laura, I saw that paper on the NAIA website, but when I search the AVMA and Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine websites, I find only recommendations for spay/neuter — no warnings about osteosarcoma or other cancers even though the studies cited appeared to be several years (or more) old.
I have only anecdotal evidence to go by with only one dog suffering from cancer - lived with 6 spayed/neutered dogs, and a dozen cats.
I’ve only worried about losing an animal under the anesthetic, and that’s never happened to me. Has anyone here received any warnings from their vet before neutering their dog?
Comment by shadepuppy — August 8, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
Here’s an objective fact: NAIA includes in its membership and actively supports high-volume commercial breeders—puppy millers. And people who actively support puppy millers are not the Good Guys, even if they do happen to come down on the “right” side of some issues.
Comment by Lis — August 8, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
shadepuppy — yep, one almost never finds the documented health risks associated with s/n mentioned anywhere that the public is likely to look. It’s all there though, in the very journals that form the backbone of mainstream veterinary medicine.
Comment by Laura — August 8, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
Patti Strand, NAIA is a board member of the AKC.
(www.akc.org/about/board_of_directors.cfm) She was also the chairman of the AKC‘s ―High Volume Breeders Committee‖ in 2001-02, tasked with reviewing AKC‘s policy toward these breeders which others might call puppy mills.
Comment by alice — August 8, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
AKC are all out for the bucks, they could care less if the animals die in our shelters as long as they get their registration money.
Comment by alice — August 8, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Patti Strand represents the $$$ not the truth. Holy Crap if you believe her, I have some swamp land to sell you in Florida.
Comment by alice — August 8, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
Gina, you are on the same side as the puppy millers and dog fighters face it.
Comment by alice — August 8, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
Reliant on Puppy Mills, AKC Loath to Regulate Them
THE BAD OLD DAYS
The AKC‘s long history with puppy mills dates as far back as the 1950s. These were wholly unregulated until, in 1970, they were put under the lax oversight of the USDA. The Growth of the Puppy Mill…. Beginning in the 1950s, breeding “AKC dogs” for sale to a seemingly insatiable public became a way for hobbyists to earn extra money, and for kennel owners to earn a living. The “doggie in the window” became a commodity, mass-produced in a puppy mill and sold to a broker and then to a pet store…. The AKC earned money each step of the way—with registration of the litter by the breeder, from transfer slips filled out whenever the puppies passed through middlemen, and when the proud new owner registered his or her pup. The AKC grew as the number of dogs grew, regardless of their quality. After extensive lobbying by the Humane Society, in 1970 puppy mills and brokers were brought under the jurisdiction of the federal Animal Welfare Act, which authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture to license and inspect dealers, exhibitors, transporters, and researchers dealing with animals “not raised for food or fiber.” But this step brought little change. “For the past twenty years the USDA hasn’t been enforcing its regulations, and the AKC hasn’t taken any action because it profits from the sale of half a million dogs a year through pet stores. The AKC charter says it has authority to regulate breeders to preserve the health and welfare of purebred dogs, but it does nothing.” In the winter of 1980-1981 Baker conducted an investigation of 294 commercial breeders in the Midwest, out of 3,886 breeders and brokers licensed by the USDA, and documented unsanitary, inhumane practices by nearly all of them. (The Atlantic, March 1990) The AKC long resisted all calls to crack down on these puppy mills, because they did not want to lose their registration revenues. As of 1988, dogs born in puppy mills made up, ―by the most conservative estimate, 20 percent of dogs registered by the AKC.Frustrated by federal inaction, a state representative in Kansas, Ginger Barr, authored legislation in 1987 to regulate the puppy mills in her state through inspection and licensing. “I was raised to think of AKC papers like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval,” Barr says, “but they wouldn’t help us. They’re the largest registry in the world, but they won’t give us the names of breeders in Kansas.” Stern says that providing the list would amount to an invasion of privacy…. It has a long [way] to go. In 1987 a reporter for Parade, Michael Satchell, asked William F. Stifel, then the president of the AKC, whether the AKC would register a blind, deaf, three-legged purebred pup with hip dysplasia and green fur. According to Parade, Stifel said, “We would register the dog. AKC unfor[tu]nately does not mean quality.” …. . . . Commercial breeding—including that practiced by backyard hobbyists—is ugly underbelly of the purebred-dog world. “The unrestricted breeding of dogs has produced a situation in which four-and-a-half million unwanted animals are put to death eachyear,” says Guy Hodge, the director of data and information at the Humane Society. (The Atlantic, March 1990)
Comment by alice — August 8, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
Anybody that says the AR Agenda is to take their pets away has been smoking some toxic stuff. This was made up by the same folks making money off the skins of the backs of the dead cats and dogs in barrels and being trucked to the rendering plants, yap breeders, AKC and all the rest of them that don’t want to take responsibility. Have your animals, please, give them a good home! You folks need to spend less time at the computer and more in the shelter. Because we’re killing beautiful cats and dogs every minute, while you worry about some stupid made up AR agenda. Go help out, and get to your local shelter, come to work with me sometime, I’ll show you what is going on. Are you going to tell me all of us shelter workers have an AR agenda, NO - we’re just tired of killing your unwanted animals!!!!!!!!
Comment by alice — August 8, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
Executive Name Title Time Devoted Compensation Contributions to Benefit Plan
Dennis B. Sprung
President & Chief Executive Officer
37.5 hrs/wk
$500,546
$20,994
James T. Stevens
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
37.5 hrs/wk
$341,530
$20,508
Michael Swick
Vice President and General Counsel
37.5 hrs/wk
$300,617
$20,508
John Lyons
Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer
37.5 hrs/wk
$259,904
$10,596
James P. Crowley
Executive Secretary
37.5 hrs/wk
$207,596
$19,930
Charles Kneifel
Vice-President and Chief Information Officer
37.5 hrs/wk
$203,185
$10,917
Noreen Baxter
Vice President Public Education & Legislation
37.5 hrs/wk
$170,600
$18,169
TOTAL
$2,123,970
$121,622
Smoke on that, they are the ones making up the AR Agenda so gullible fools like you will fall for it so they can keep pulling in the big bucks while you defend putting animals to their death in shelters. Shame on all of you who are behind their phony opposition to AB 1634. And Gina Spadafori might be on the payroll herself.
Comment by alice — August 9, 2007 @ 12:00 am
Alice, quit drinking the Kool-Aid and read what we’ve said here.
The issue of mandatory spay-neuter is more complicated than you are apparently able or willing to understand, and wiping out reputable, responsible breeders is not going to solve the shelter problem.
As for any suggestion that I’m “on the payroll” of anyone except those who pay me for writing newspaper columns or books (or my “day job,” unrelated to pets) … well, thanks for the morning laugh.
My writing partner, Dr. Marty Becker, has been known to wince when our Web bills comes in, since we don’t make a dime on the blog — it’s all outgo, more than $10K and climbing since the pet-food recall began.
But thanks for the lovely nutbag conspiracy theory to start my day.
You’re not killing my unwanted animals, by the way. I’ve never sent an animal to the shelter in my life, and taken quite a few out. And although I don’t breed — and have run a rescue group — I do know lots of reputable, responsible breeders. Like the one who co-owns my three retrievers, who in 30 years of passionate protection of a rare working breed, knows where every one — yes, every single one — of the animals she has brought into the this world ended up, for life. She has taken back every one who needed re-homing (usually for reasons of death in the family or other non-frivolous reason), and keeps in constant contact for life, just in case she can help.
These are the kind of responsible, reputable breeders you refuse to know exist, the kind you lump in with the puppy-millers. The kind, by the way, who forced the AKC back down on its plan to get into bed with large-scale commercial breeders.
Shame on you for assuming so much about the truly grassroots effort to stop a pointless piece of legislation. I can’t tell you how many animal-lovers — not “just” responsible, reputable breeders — met with their elected representatives, went to the state Capitol to protest, called, wrote and faxed for the first time ever, on any issue.
It’s not about the money for us. It never was. It’s about protecting and preserving our heritage breeds. And if you don’t believe the animal-rights agenda includes an end to all domestic animals, you’d better go do some reading. Start with Ingrid Newkirk, of PETA, and keep going.
And when you’re done with that, educate yourself more on exactly who puts those animals in your shelter — if you really do work in one — and join us in efforts to target those people.
Put AB 1634 in the search box here. You have homework to do … unless your mind is already so closed you can’t fit in anything more than what you’ve already been fed.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 9, 2007 @ 5:55 am
alice said:
“Anybody that says the AR Agenda is to take their pets away has been smoking some toxic stuff.”
Hmmm….
“The cat, like the dog, must disappear… We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist.” John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.
“Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles—from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.” John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.
“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.” Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us? Harper’s, August 1988, p. 50.
there’s more:
http://www.naiaonline.org/arti.....squote.htm
Agreed, it’s “toxic stuff”. Mentally warped, ignorant, extreme, scary, lying, toxic stuff is coming from the mouths of leaders in the AR movement.
Comment by Laura — August 9, 2007 @ 8:59 am
Gina,
Thanks for the reply. Since you are a writer you should also be a reader, AB 1634 does not, I repeat DOES NOT ‘wipe out responsible breeders’ now you are the one making the kool aide. Read the bill! It makes responsible breeders by asking for their sellers permit which they are suppose to have already. Do you have yours Gina?
Comment by alice — August 9, 2007 @ 9:37 am
Gina, by the way, there are purebreds getting killed in shelters as we speak, and the purebred rescues are overflowing. Did these dogs and cats fall out of the sky? Oh, I know yes, blame them on someone else out there. That’s what responsible breeders do they blame everyone else. We call the breeders in our ares to take these dogs back and you know what we hear…we’re full!!!!! How dare them, but of course they get away with it and get away with call themselves responsible. Again, come to the shelter.
Comment by alice — August 9, 2007 @ 9:39 am
Laura, I guess you are the type of person who generalizes about everyone then. Like all breeders are living off untaxed money from breeding their animals, or maybe racist stuff like all Mexicans are lazy. To say ALL AR People want to ban pets is insane, untrue and irresponsible! I’m tired of you painting all of us with the same brush. I am a responsible pet owner, a shelter worker, a caretaker, a rescuer, and it’s total bull for you to say things like this. How dare you! In my 20 years I have NEVER NEVER met anyone that wanted to take away pets.
Comment by alice — August 9, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Alice, I can sure see you’ve neither read the bill yourself NOR taken me up on my suggestion that you read what has been written here regarding it.
Those purebreds in shelters are from puppy-mills, pet stores and back-yard ignorant, careless or clueless breeders — tossed in by people who did not do their homework before they pulled out a checkbook or a credit card to buy a puppy from a seller who asked nothing more than that from them.
They do NOT come from responsible, reputable breeders, who ALWAYS take back the animals they’ve bred. Always. And who turn down people who shouldn’t have pets.
You really need lessons in critical thinking and reading comprehension.
For example, thanks for your suggestion that I get a breeding permit, but … I don’t need one because I’m not a breeder. I have run a breed rescue group, though, spent lots of time in shelters (including the euthanasia room) and have held plenty of unwanted pets when they died.
I’ve saved more unwanted pets than you’ve owned. So get off it.
And you’re on “moderate” here for your comments until you can catch up on your homework. I adore and encourage intelligent, well-reasoned and well-argued discussion based on facts — and you’ll find plenty of that on this blog, including lots I personally disagree with — but I have little tolerance for idiots who do nothing more than parrot speaking points.
Go play somewhere else until you’re ready to discuss things as grown-ups do.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 9, 2007 @ 9:51 am
So alice, you’re 20 years old?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 9, 2007 @ 9:53 am
In 20 years of helping animals, and working with probably over 100 animal rescuers, I have never once heard anyone even jokingly imply that they want to get rids of pets. Most AR people have homes overflowing with animals because they keep falling in love with animals heading to the euthanasia room.
If anyone reading this seriously thinks that AR people want to rid the state of pets, they are either incapable of understanding the world or just plain stupid.
My guess is that this idea is actually cynically floated by people against a great spay/neuter bill because they are grasping to paint the decent people supporting the bill as nuts. We pet lovers out here are strongly for this bill… I totally discount the comments of anyone who makes money off their pets, as they are inherently biased.
The bill provides ample support and exemption for breeders operating under the law. The likely truth is, the loud, annoying breeders against this bill are probably operating outside the law. They probably don’t have the proper permits. Probably have not notified their local AC agency that they are breeding animals, as required. Probably don’t pay taxes on their sales. Should we really listen to gossip from law-breakers?
Comment by Sam D — August 9, 2007 @ 9:56 am
Sam, if you find a reputable, responsible breeder who’s making money, well, you let me know. In 35 years writing about these issues I can’t say I’ve ever met one.
Again … all breeders aren’t the same.
My suggestion remains: Put AB1634 in the search box here and do a little reading before you comment again. Don’t make assumptions regarding who we are and what we think here on this blog.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 9, 2007 @ 10:01 am
Laura, I guess you are the type of person who generalizes about everyone then. Like all breeders are living off untaxed money from breeding their animals, or maybe racist stuff like all Mexicans are lazy. To say ALL AR People want to ban pets is insane, untrue and irresponsible! I’m tired of you painting all of us with the same brush. I am a responsible pet owner, a shelter worker, a caretaker, a rescuer, and it’s total bull for you to say things like this. How dare you! In my 20 years I have NEVER NEVER met anyone that wanted to take away pets.
Comment by alice — August 9, 2007 @ 9:44 am
But you have no problem sliming responsible breeders for the actions of puppy millers—who were exempted from the beginning in your so-wonderful AB 1634, while the small-scale, responsible breeders would have had to get business permits and breeding permits that they are not currently required to have, and whose cost was unknown and would have been locally variable.
And by the way, when you say you call “breeders” to take back “purebred dogs” and they refuse—are you calling the breeders of those dogs? Or just any local breeder of that breed, asking them to “take back” dogs that came, not from them, but from some puppy miller who never gave a @#$% about any dog it ever produced?
Because if you’re calling “any local breeder,” without regard to who bred that dog, well, then, you’re going to have to deal with the fact that their first responsibility is to the dogs they have brought into the world, and their ability to foster and/or rehome unrelated dogs may be limited.
And their willingness to make an extra effort at the request of someone trying to hold them personally responsible for the atrocities of the puppy millers whom they hate and oppose, and who slags them off for being breeders at all, may be even more limited.
Comment by Lis — August 9, 2007 @ 10:02 am
If you are a breeder who is losing money, you might welcome the opportunity to fully disclose your activities on your taxes, since you will receive a deduction for the money you lost. I assume since you are responsible, you already do, since it’s the law.
Unfortunately, the pool of animals available each day exceeds the number of homes. When you bring another animal into the world today, you have just expanded that pool of available animals. That means that one more animal ends up dying, even if it is not the one that you brought in, because the number of homes has not changed.
I suggest conservation for breeders, just like energy conservation. If you really care about the number dogs being put to death, and you sound reasonable so I assume you do care, please consider cutting the number of animals you produce by half. If all responsible breeders did this, it would make a huge dent in the number being killed.
Comment by Sam D — August 9, 2007 @ 10:07 am
And please, Gina, indulge me, if you would:
- You are reporting the income (and loss if appropriate), correct? If not, explain to me how a breeder operating outside the law is “responsible”?
- Be honest, do you really believe (or does anyone reading this believe) that any sane person working to help animals thinks that people shouldn’t have pets?
Comment by Sam D — August 9, 2007 @ 10:12 am
Sam and Alice (I assume you’re either sharing a home or actually the same person, since you’re both using the same IP address):
“Until there are none, adopt one” is another feel-good nonsense statement. The shortage of pets people want — small, cute, friendly dogs — is so real that urban shelters import dogs from rural ones.
Stopping reputable, responsible breeders will never find homes for the sweet pit bulls no one wants who make up much of the urban shelter population.
Again, and for the last time: Put AB1634 in the search engine, and catch a clue as to what’s wrong with sweeping nanny state legislation that blames one group of people for problems caused by another.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 9, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Maybe the 84th time’s a charm for you: I don’t report any breeding income because … (wait for it) … I’m not a breeder.
As for what any “sane” animal-rights activist thinks … well, hmmm, would that include the head of PETA? I’ll leave it to you to decide, because in fact I have sat across a desk from Ingrid Newkirk and had her tell me she was working for an end to all domestic animals, including “pets.” (Although she of course does not use that word.)
And by the way, PETA staffers have taken pets from the rural areas around their Norfolk, VA, headquarters with impression that they would find them good homes, then euthanized the animals and tossed the bodies in Dumpsters.
You can look it up, Sam/Alice.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 9, 2007 @ 10:21 am
Gina I appreciate your sense of humor, I’m sure you’re not a nut and you love pets. If Ingrid Newkirk said that then she is nuts. I’m sure there are kooks on all sides of this. I have never, ever, spoken to one person who honestly believed that anyone wants people to get rid of their pets.
Bottom line, as before, if you are a breeder (yes, I know YOU’RE not), you get to operate just as you do today once the bill passes. If you are an underground breeder, you’ll probably keep doing what you do anyway.
I’m tired of watching nice dogs (NOT pitbulls) dragged down the hall to the room.
So let’s talk only about nice, adoptable dogs (not pitbulls). Every day, the pool of nice, adoptable dogs is way larger than the finite number of homes. The excess nice, adoptable animals are killed. If you add one nice, adoptable dog to the pool, then some other nice, adoptable dog in the pool is killed. If you don’t think this is happening, please send your address, and next week I can pull up in a U-Haul with 75 nice, adoptable dogs who would have been euthanized had you not volunteered to take them in.
Asking people to spay/neuter will work. I volunteered to help this bill as soon as I heard about it and I’ll volunteer every second I can until it passes.
That IP thing sounds incorrect… Alice are you on COX Cable?!
Comment by Sam D — August 9, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Forget it alice, I know who you are now
Comment by Sam D — August 9, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Sam, the only breeders who get to operate as before under AB 1634 are puppy mills, who are exempt from the legislation because its backers didn’t want to go up against the retail pet industry.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 9, 2007 @ 10:55 am
In order to claim that net loss as a business loss on your taxes, you have to show a genuine effort at making a profit. (And yes, there are legal and regulatory standards for what constitutes a genuine effort at making a profit.) Otherwise, it’s just an expensive hobby, and an attempt to claim your net expenses as a business loss constitutes tax fraud. Sam/Alice, I truly hope you’re not making this mistake; the IRS can be unpleasant to deal with when they get annoyed.
Income already has to be reported.
And finally, just as an informational note, had my Chinese Crested dog (12.5 pounds sopping wet, cat-friendly, soft temperament) not been available to me, there is absolutely zero chance that I would have adopted a pit bull, rottweiler, bull mastiff, Labrador or Golden Retriever, or any other dog weighing from 50% to 200% of my weight, requiring an experienced handler with a strong personality, or requiring an owner with a high energy level and wanting to spend many hours a week hiking, biking, running, etc.
Read that last paragraph carefully; you may find it confusing.
Comment by Lis — August 9, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Lis … I think that’s this is point the “all breeders are the same” people are can’t get their heads around.
For reputable, responsible breeders, it’s not a business. And as you point out: The IRS agrees!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 9, 2007 @ 10:59 am
So let’s talk only about nice, adoptable dogs (not pitbulls). Every day, the pool of nice, adoptable dogs is way larger than the finite number of homes. The excess nice, adoptable animals are killed. If you add one nice, adoptable dog to the pool, then some other nice, adoptable dog in the pool is killed.
Please be more precise about what you mean by “nice, adoptable dogs.” Because, frankly, someone who doesn’t believe Ingrid Newkirk, head of PETA, wants to eliminate pets, even though INGRID NEWKIRK is the one who says she does, is not someone whose judgment I’m willing to take on faith, without details.
Comment by Lis — August 9, 2007 @ 11:00 am
So you think anyone that is for spay and neuter and not killing animals is with PETA. OK, you folks are the most close minded people I have ever attempted to blog with. The General statements you make are only to defend your pathetic stand that you really could give a crap that a half million are getting killed. If you think for one minute ALL BREEDERS DON’T MAKE MONEY you are a complete and utter liar. It’s on thing to be on a side of an issue but to say things at any cost to make your point when you have to know they’re not true is madness.
Comment by alice — August 9, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Alice, honey … go back to school. Some remedial work in reading comprehension would do you a world of good.
Now, go play elsewhere. You’re done here.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 9, 2007 @ 11:09 am
So you think anyone that is for spay and neuter and not killing animals is with PETA.
People who are for mandatory spay/neuter at a too-young age with no exemptions for working dogs, stock dogs, service dogs, or responsible breeders’ breeding stock, BUT with a broad exemption for puppy millers and pet shops is clearly not on the side of the animals, regardless of which organization, if any, they are affiliated with. Or they’re just plug ignorant.
OK, you folks are the most close minded people I have ever attempted to blog with. The General statements you make are only to defend your pathetic stand that you really could give a crap that a half million are getting killed.
You’re the one who’s been making sweeping general statements about other people, sweetheart. And you’ve persistently and determinedly ignored the information given to you about the efforts people disagreeing with you have made and are making on behalf of shelter and rescue animals. Oh, and the puppy mill victims that you apparently have no interest in.
If you think for one minute ALL BREEDERS DON’T MAKE MONEY you are a complete and utter liar. It’s on thing to be on a side of an issue but to say things at any cost to make your point when you have to know they’re not true is madness.
Comment by alice — August 9, 2007 @ 11:02 am
No one said “ALL BREEDERS DON’T MAKE MONEY”. I and others have attempted to explain to you and your buddy Sam that NOT ALL BREEDERS ARE THE SAME. NOT ALL BREEDERS ARE PUPPY MILLERS OR BYBs. There are the puppy millers, whom you’re willing to exempt in your animus towards other breeders, but who do truly horrendous things to their animals. There are the BYBs, who are also in in for a profit, who may genuinely love their pets, but have no interest in the puppies beyond what they can get for them, and who don’t bother with veterinary care or socialization for them. And then there are the breeders you don’t believe exist, who are not in it for the money, but for love of their breed, and who put a lot of effort into breeding healthy animals, socializing the pups properly, produce at most two litters a year, usually less, often much less than that, and who are, generally, lucky to break even.
You are the one making sweeping generalizations about people, and refusing to acknowledge huge difference amongst them.
Comment by Lis — August 9, 2007 @ 11:20 am
I don’t think ALL ARs want to ban pets. I think the top leadership of the AR movement wants to ban pets, and I’m using their own words as plain evidence.
I don’t think that most of the people who support AB 1634 want to ban pets. I think most of them have been duped by a clever propaganda campaign spread by AR groups that want to ban pets. A propaganda campaign that the main advocate and sponsor for AB 1634 has been actively spreading.
Take for example the supporters’ claim that the opposition to AB 1634 is all about “greedy breeders” just wanting to protect their alleged profits from taxes and fees. There are at least two lies in this assertion.
First, it is not true that the opposition is just “the breeders”. The opposition lists are public documents, and the sponsors of the bill have them.
There are several hundred organizations among the opponents of this bill, and many of them are not breeder groups. For example, the United States Police Canine Association isn’t a breeder group, it is the largest organization of uniformed K9 law enforcement officers in the nation. The California Rescue Dog Association is not a breeder group, it is by far the largest K9 search-and-rescue organization in California [I am a member]. Assistance Dogs International is not a breeder group, it is the coalition of many organizations that train and place guide dogs for the blind and service dogs for the disabled, including a dozen such organizations in California. These groups are among the many who are strong opponents of AB 1634. The opposition to AB 1634 represents a broad spectrum within the dog and cat owning communities.
The second lie in the supporters’ claim about “greedy breeders” is that greed has anything to do with it. It is a rare responsible breeder who doesn’t lose money on their breeding programs. Those who continue to claim otherwise and flog nonsense about uncollected sales taxes and income taxes are either ignorant, or are lying.
Breeders oppose AB 1634 because they are subject matter experts on breeding. They can read the bill with an understanding of the real impacts it would have on breeders. They know the bill would devastate responsible dog and cat breeding.
AB 1634 may look just fine to those who aren’t subject matter experts on dog and cat breeding, K9 law enforcement, K9 search-and-rescue, working stockdogs, guide dogs for the blind, service dogs for the disabled, hunting dogs, the real reasons why dogs & cats are relinquished to shelters, statistical shelter trends, the actual track record of MSN laws, and the non-coercive programs that actually have reduced shelter intakes and euthanasias. The more one learns about these subjects, the less one can support mandatory spay/neuter laws.
I have read the bill. All eight versions of it. Many times. I’ve studied the language in detail. I’ve shared what I know about the subjects above, and educated myself about the subjects I was less familiar with (e.g. cat breeding, feral cats, etc). AB 1634 would do nothing to alleviate the problems it seeks to address, and it would cause widespread harm to California.
Comment by Laura — August 9, 2007 @ 11:21 am
Umm… sorry if I wasn’t clear, if Ingrid Newkirk told you that then she is nuts. so I guess I’m on your side on that? I have never talked to one person who said anything in the direction of wanting to eliminate pets. The tatooed nutjobs who protest with bullhorns make me crazy and I have not met anyone like that working for this bill, thank God.
To answer your question… nice adoptable dogs are those dogs who sit or pace in their cages, wag their tails, go crazy and lick you when you take them out, beg you with their eyes to take them home, and fight (or submit in the most pathetic way) as they are taken away to die. The type of dog you would love to have with you on your morning walk. They overflow our shelters. I wish I was just some moron pulling your chain here, to make life easier, but like I said… I can bring you as many as you want, and you’ll love every one.
Dog lovers (and rightly so) have a real hard time accepting this, even people who dump their animals will fool themselves into thinking their abandoned dog will find a good home. Please, obviously you guys love pets on this site. Wake up to what’s going on in our shelters. These are not AR nuts behind this bill, they are shelter workers.
Comment by Sam D — August 9, 2007 @ 11:25 am
Alice, calling yourself “Jennie” and trying to post the same thing that didn’t get through the first time isn’t going to work.
Your IP address is on moderate. You aren’t getting through. Take it elsewhere.
And Sam, I know you’re not the same person, even if you do have the same IP address. You obviously have a brain.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 9, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Sam D — No one here is indifferent to the situation in animal shelters. We don’t disagree on that point. What we disagree about is the solution.
Mandatory spay/neuter laws have a consistent track record of failure. Even the “model for the state” for MSN… Santa Cruz County… is a failure.
Programs that have been proven to actually work are all non-coercive, community-based “No Kill” measures coupled with enforcement existing leash laws.
http://www.nokilladvocacycente.....rylaws.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1r9GJ_N7WU
Comment by Laura — August 9, 2007 @ 11:46 am
To answer your question… nice adoptable dogs are those dogs who sit or pace in their cages, wag their tails, go crazy and lick you when you take them out, beg you with their eyes to take them home, and fight (or submit in the most pathetic way) as they are taken away to die. The type of dog you would love to have with you on your morning walk. They overflow our shelters. I wish I was just some moron pulling your chain here, to make life easier, but like I said… I can bring you as many as you want, and you’ll love every one.
I see you’re still missing part of the point: Size matters. However nice the dog is, however suitable otherwise, if I can’t, in an emergency, pick it up and carry to my car, by myself, to get it to the vet for treatment, it’s not the dog for me. I’ve been through that once; I won’t go through it again.
If the dog is an abolutely sweetie with human beings, including kids, but has a strong prey drive, it’s not the dog for me. I have two cats.
And if it’s an absolutely perfect dog, but needs the kind of activity I used to do with my border collie, sorry, no, it needs to find a different home. I can’t do that anymore.
A good temperament is important. It’s essential. But it’s not enough. All those different breeds of dogs exist because people needed, genuinely needed, different sets of characteristics in their dogs. And we still do. You can’t just put any random “nice dog” together with any random “responsible dog owner” and assume it’s going to work out.
And small, fluffy dogs suitable for a middle-aged woman with a small house, no yard, and no kids are not the dogs that are filling the shelters to overflowing.
Addy, meanwhile, is a dog that, had she not had a responsible breeder, would have wound up in a shelter or rescue. Because she had a responsible breeder to take her back when the original buyer lost interest in her, though, she got rehomed by her breeder, rather than passing through the shelter system.
Now, tell me, is she worthy because she had a bad first-buyer experience and needed to be rehomed, or unworthy, because she came from a responsible breeder who saw to it that she didn’t become a shelter statistic but went directly to a good new home?
Dog lovers (and rightly so) have a real hard time accepting this, even people who dump their animals will fool themselves into thinking their abandoned dog will find a good home. Please, obviously you guys love pets on this site. Wake up to what’s going on in our shelters. These are not AR nuts behind this bill, they are shelter workers.
Comment by Sam D — August 9, 2007 @ 11:25 am
I said before, clearly I need to say it again: you need to read this site a bit more, and see what the various posters here, including our hosts, are actually doing to help shelter, rescue, and puppy mill animals. No one here is indifferent to the plight of shelter animals; we just disagree that AB 1634 is the solution, or even addresses the problem. It doesn’t. It would effectively shut down the kind of breeders who DO take responsibility for their animals and ensure that no puppy they produce winds up in a shelter, shut down the ability to produce needed working dogs, give a free pass to puppy millers, and not even address the reasons why dogs and cats wind up in shelters. Please, read some more. Get to know the issues of why animals are surrendered to shelters, why shelter animals can’t be trained as guide dogs for the blind, why cattle people want stock dogs bred as well as trained for their tasks—and a whole lot more. AB 1634 is a bad bill, and is the brainchild of people who do not love pets. Really it is. It won’t help the problems you’re concerned with; it will make them worse.
Comment by Lis — August 9, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Comment by Sam D — August 9, 2007 @ 11:25 am
“I have never talked to one person who said anything in the direction of wanting to eliminate pets. The tatooed nutjobs who protest with bullhorns make me crazy and I have not met anyone like that working for this bill, thank God.”
Well, if your focus has been entirely around the AB1634 fight, then perhaps you’ve just never become aware of the overall AR agenda of wwhich AB1634 is just a part. Laura posted some quotes earlier in this thread. Here are a few more. And pay attention - the first three on the list are from representatives of three of the organizations backing AB1634:
“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. … One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
— Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice-President oF HSUS, May, 1993
“It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership.”
— Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, “In Defense of Animals,” Spring 1997
“Breeders must be eliminated! As long as there is a surplus of companion animals in the concentration camps referred to as ‘shelters’, and they are killing them because they are homeless, one should not be allowed to produce more for their own amusement and profit. If you know of a breeder in the Los Angeles area, whether commercial or private, legal or illegal, let us know and we will post their name, location, phone number so people can write them letters telling them ‘Don’t Breed or Buy, While Others DIE.’” “Breeders! Let’s get rid of them too!” Campaign on Animal Defense League’s website, September 2, 2003
Here are a couple from other areas of the country:
“Liberating our language by eliminating the word ‘pet’ is the first step … In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA’s policy to oppose the keeping of animals as ‘pets.’”
-New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, “Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!” Good Dog! February 1991, p.20
“In a perfect world, we would not keep animals for our benefit, including pets,” Tom Regan, emeritus professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University and author of “Empty Cages” - speaking at University of Wisconsin-Madison campus, March 3, 2004
And finally,in the event that you’re still not understanding that this is a concerted long-term strategy designed to get big results by nibbling away at the problem a little at a time at the local level (pay particular attention to Item #10):
THE ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS AGENDA
The agenda is taken from “The politics of Animal Liberation” written by Kim Barlett, Editor of the Animals’ Agenda, Nov. 1987 but a miminally modified version is part of the Green Party Platform for 2000.
THE AGENDA
1) Abolish by law animal research.
2) Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic and product testing, classroom demonstrations and weapons development.
3) Vegetarian meals should be made available at all public institutions, including schools.
4) Eliminate all animal agriculture.
5) End herbicides, pesticides, and other Agricultural chemicals. Outlaw predator control.
6) Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the dept. of Agriculture
7) Eliminate fur ranching and end the use of furs.
8) Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing.
9) End the international trade in wildlife goods.
10) Stop any further breeding of companion animals, *including purebred dogs and cats*. Spaying and neutering should be subsidized by State and Municipal governments. Commerce in domestic and exotic animals for the *pet trade* should be abolished.
11) End the use of animals in entertainment
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 9, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Comment by Sam D — August 9, 2007 @ 11:25 am
“even people who dump their animals will fool themselves into thinking their abandoned dog will find a good home.”
You’ve touched on an important aspect of this problem, which is the breaking of the human/animal bond. And there’s been some very good work done in this area, with more ongoing. You can read about it at:
http://www.petpopulation.org/
Probably one of the most significant findings of the early studies was that the vast majority of dogs being euthanized were NOT puppies and kittens, but rather young dogs - just entering their rowdy adolescent phase - and presenting too much of a challenge for their harried owners who relinquished them to the shelter thinking that the shelter could find them a good home (who could handle them). So it’s not a problem of not enough homes, but rather, a problem of a broken commitment. Fix THAT, and a whole lot fewer dogs will die (and this is being borne out in practice).
Responsible breeders already know that you don’t just send a dog home with anyone who comes along without first spending some time educating that person on exactly what is involved in caring for a dog for the long haul. Progressive shelters are starting to do this now, too - with educational programs for new and prospective dog owners, training and behavior classes to help the new owners get off on the right foot, and hotlines to keep overwhelmed owners from panicking and making bad or irreversible decisions. (I had a “hotline” with my breeder-purchased puppy, too - the fact that I could call her at any time if I had a problem).
In general, shelters are starting to learn and enact what Responsible Breeders have known for a long time. That if you educate before letting someone take one of your animals, employ selective criteria on who will be permitted to do so, and continue to be available for followup support, you will not only just FIND good homes for your critters - you’ll help CREATE them, as well.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 9, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Holy cow, this is one verbose chat board. Santa Cruz is an absolute success, I have talked with several shelter workers in Santa Cruz who are totally delighted with what is happening there, they are killing many, many less animals than they used to. To call it a failure is to fall for the statistics trap, I know both sides are tossing around stats but I have talked with the actual folks, they tell the real story. Way less animals killed, shelter workers much happier about their jobs. If you don’t believe me (and I imagine you don’t), I encourage you to contact Santa Cruz animal services 831-454-7303 and ask to speak with anyone who has worked there for a long time, or someone who is familiar with the intake and euthanasia rates. I don’t want to give you a specific name because you might feel I sent you to someone biased. Every person there will tell you how much better it is now; not perfect, but much better.
Other Pat, your comments about educating the public are well taken, I have thought for a long time that people dropping animals at shelters should be required to take away materials telling them what is really going to happen to their animal (the best would be to make them take a 10 minute course first, but there is no possible chance in the current over-burdoned shelter environment). Then, I believe that a phone call should be made a week later to the dropee, letting them know exactly what happened to their animals, whether it was adopted back out or euthanized… to help eliminate the fantasy that so many people have about what really happens in the shelters.
The whole thrust of the bill, as I read it, is to get family animals fixed while leaving breeders and profit animals out of it. Sorry if it’s not perfect, but it will absolutely lead to less animals killed, even based on the voluntary compliance aspect alone. And animal control has no time at all to do anything but their current tasks, no one is going to be bothering breeders (even underground, tax evading breeders), this is mainly a concept of universal S/N that needs to get out into the public consciousness for voluntary compliance.
I have to admit that a lot of the ‘AR Agenda’ posted above makes good sense to me, some is totally utopian and some is dopey. The hunting piece would never fly, but my opinion is no one needs to be out killing wildlife unless they are living off the land, it’s certainly not a sport. The animal agriculture thing is a pipe dream, but meat and dairy animals really have a lousy life; in 150 years we might be there anyway after people start growing artificial meat of any quality. The pet breeding thing is totally wrong, I wish every household that could care for pets had them, they make life much better and pet owners are much happier people.
Lis your belief that “AB 1634 is a bad bill, and is the brainchild of people who do not love pets” is so far wrong that it is incensing me. No one, and I have talked with probably 25 of them including up in Sacramento, who is working on this bill is an AR nutjob or feels even remotely that people should not have pets. I have spoken with the actual people who came up with the bill and they all have pets and love them. And the AR tie-in, please, it is SO wrong it’s not even funny. Matter of fact, when I went to see the Republican Ed Bokes (sp? LA animal services) speak on the bill that he helped start, a bunch of AR nutjobs busted in with a megaphone and started calling him a “F**ker” because they think he hates animals. Some AR kooks even think the bill is actually a “breeder bill” designed to get breeders a bigger market, since less mutts will be born.
Great bill, awesome people working on it, pet lovers all. I support it and will continue to work for it as much as I can.
Comment by Sam D — August 9, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Emotions run high when talking about shelter animals because so many of them are being killed each day, but every post I’ve ever read on this site has been written by someone who cares deeply about the deaths of shelter animals and wants solutions to end the problem. I would not be able to handle the duties involving euthanasia of adoptable pets, and perhaps Alice has not been able to handle it either. Putting aside her rants, she’s desperately looking for a way to stop killing the shelter animals, and thought the bill would do what the publicity flyers said.
I bring Alice back into the discussion because I am just realizing how great the differences of opinion related to “pet subjects” have become, and it saddens and worries me that people who love animals seem to be dividing into opposing camps instead of working together. I’ve been on the internet for many years, but have been blithely unaware of the juxtaposition of “animal welfare groups” and “animal rights groups”. Before I came here, I thought PETA was a group that loved animals but went too far sometimes in their activism, and that HSUS had something to do with my local Humane Society, but now that I’m looking into the different groups websites — it almost seems like there is a war going on. The language used on some websites I’ve been visiting cautions people not believe what “the others” say, and it makes it more difficult (for me, at least) to figure out what strategies offer the best solutions.
This website is different, and I thank Gina, Christine and other bloggers here for maintaining an atmosphere that allows for discussion of subjects rather than presenting a “diatribe for our side” attitude.
I’m not a member of any group, and till very recently didn’t know there was a difference between “animal rights” and “animal welfare” groups. I grew up just knowing that animals have rights and that I cared about their welfare. There has to be room in the middle for folks who just want to solve problems that animals are having, and that people are having with their animals. This blog appears to one of those places that has room for such discussions.
Comment by shadepuppy — August 9, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Other Pat, your comments about educating the public are well taken, I have thought for a long time that people dropping animals at shelters should be required to take away materials telling them what is really going to happen to their animal (the best would be to make them take a 10 minute course first, but there is no possible chance in the current over-burdoned shelter environment). Then, I believe that a phone call should be made a week later to the dropee, letting them know exactly what happened to their animals, whether it was adopted back out or euthanized… to help eliminate the fantasy that so many people have about what really happens in the shelters.
How about, instead of spending “education” funds to make people feel bad after the fact, we spend them to provide education and training to people adopting animals from the shelter, and offer low-cost obedience and behavior classes to pet owners wherever they acquired their pets, and educate people about the benefits of spay/neuter for their pets, and subsidized spay/neuter clinics?
Or is that not sufficiently punitive for you?
The whole thrust of the bill, as I read it, is to get family animals fixed while leaving breeders and profit animals out of it.
The way it’s written, it exempts large-scale, for-profit puppy millers, and imposes large new costs on responsible breeders—who are already lucky to break even. Meanwhile, it also provides an exemption for “just one litter” from the family pet on her first heat. (That’s like an eleven-year-old human having a baby, by the way, in terms of physical and emotional development. Does that sound like a good idea to you?)
Sorry if it’s not perfect, but it will absolutely lead to less animals killed, even based on the voluntary compliance aspect alone.
Well, no, it won’t, because it exempts all the people (puppy millers, pet stores, people who want “just one litter” from Fluffy) who are contributing to the shelter overpopulation, while effectively shutting down the responsible breeders, who take serious care that their puppies or kittens don’t become shelter statistics. This bill would make things worse, not better.
And animal control has no time at all to do anything but their current tasks, no one is going to be bothering breeders
So, you’d force responsible breeders to become scofflaws in order to continue breeding responsibly, and you call that leaving them alone? These are, excuse the expression, responsible people, who aren’t going to feel that it’s okay as long as Animal Control ignores them.
And aside from their own dislike of breaking the law, when enforcement resources are inadequate to the task, it’s very often not the worst offenders that are targeted, but the easiest targets, so that the enforcement agency can at least show some signs of trying to do their job. That means the responsible folks will be more likely to be hassled that the genuine BYBs, or the guys breeding pit bulls for dogfighting, not less.
(even underground, tax evading breeders),
Still clinging to this fantasy of the responsible breeders committing tax evasion by not reporting their puppy sales income?
this is mainly a concept of universal S/N that needs to get out into the public consciousness for voluntary compliance.
I have a wild and crazy idea. Let’s actually spend some money on educating the public on the benefits of spaying and neutering their pets. I mean, directly on that, not coming up with crazy round-about schemes that actually encourage people to make Fluffy have “just one litter” before they spay her.
Comment by Lis — August 9, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Of all the tall tales told by sponsors of AB 1634, the Santa Cruz County mandatory s/n story surely qualifies for the Whopper Award.
Sponsors have being tossing around not only claims about 50-60% reductions in shelter impound rates in Santa Cruz County that simply aren’t true (the truth is much more modest than that), but they even went so far as to publish graphs of imaginary Santa Cruz County shelter data.
http://democrats.assembly.ca.g.....zStats.pdf
This graph doesn’t remotely resemble the shelter data that Santa Cruz County submitted to the California Department of Health Services (CDHS), as required under state law. There is no subset of the actual data that could be used to derive it either… the attempted Watsonville Spin notwithstanding.
The CDHS reports containing the data that Santa Cruz County reported to the state can be found here, numbered by year.
http://www.theanimalcouncil.com/Reference.html
By all means, look up the Santa Cruz data yourself, compare it to the graph above, and see for yourself.
Comparing the actual Santa Cruz shelter data to the imaginary Santa Cruz data claimed by sponsors shows the extent to which the data were fudged to create a misleading impression
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs.....20dogs.pdf
Truth is, Santa Cruz County has higher per capita shelter impound rates than neighboring counties who don’t have MSN, even though MSN is supposed to reduce impound rates. Santa Cruz County’s per capita euthanasia rates are no better than neighboring counties.
http://www.naiaonline.org/issu.....graphs.htm
I don’t doubt that shelter workers at Santa Cruz County report that they are killing fewer animals now then 1995, when the ordinance passed. Sure they are, and the data they reported to the state shows that. I don’t need to call them to learn that, I can see it in the reports they’ve filed with the state. But then, similar improvements — oftentimes vastly superior improvements — have occurred throughout California.
http://saveourdogs.net/documen.....0chart.pdf
These statewide improvements have happened without mandatory s/n laws.
Can someone please explain why this issue is being described as a crisis that requires a new, punitive state law when the number of dogs euthanized in California’s shelters decreased by 43% in just the last 5 years alone?
Comment by Laura — August 9, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Personally, I think Alice bumped her head on the car door one too many times.
No, things won’t be the same if AB1634 passes. It will be a MANDATE that I will need to spay my four year old bitch. I am not a breeder. I have never been a breeder. I can’t even keep a houseplant alive. Yet, some state law will MANDATE that I will now have to have my bitch spayed. It doesn’t make any difference that my dogs have “never” produced anything that has gone into the shelter system.
I am not … I will not … spay my dog because Lloyd Levine and Judie Mancuso can’t get it through their thick skulls that AB1634 does “not” look at the big picture. When they can tell me they have gotten all of the dogs smuggled into California from Mexico sent back from whence they came, when they can tell me that there will be low cost spay/neuter programs available in “every” county, when they can tell me that they will establish TNR programs for feral cats, and the products of large-scale puppy mills will no longer be entering the shelters, then I will invite them to lunch!
The HSUS loves to tell you about their 10 million members and the fact that they can say 1 in 30 people belong to, donate to, or once walked past someone wearing a HSUS t-shirt so that will “qualify” them to say you a member.
ONE in THIRTY??? Give me a break. The other TWENTY NINE people should not have to do what Wayne Pacelle (self-proclaimed animal “welfare” deity) espouses.
PETA’s claim to fame? Oh, I remember. They slipped some money to Coronado so he would not mention PETA’s name. Do some homework, Alice!! Get in bed with PETA and you might get the “big hypodermic needle in the sky.” People have “thought” they were relinquishing their dogs to a shelter with the pretext that their animals would be found a permanent home. Instead, those dogs were DEAD ON ARRIVAL!! Put to death in PETA’s van as they pulled away from the curb!!
I am tired of the ALFs, ELFs, PETA, and HSUS traumatizing, firebombing, spreading deceipt and (mis)information to JQP. Pacelle speaks from his pulpit and for some reason people think he is an expert. They also think John ‘JP’ Goodwin is an expert at dog-fighting, too. But, I suppose they were running out of titles after his previous claim to fame … FIREBOMBING ARSONIST! The FBI has Goodwin higher up the food chain that Al Qaeda on the “domestic terrorist” list!! What does that say about animal rights agenda!!!
By the way, Alice? I do volunteer in a shelter. I am also active in mobile adoptions twice per month. I volunteer three days per week in canine-assisted therapy to hospitals and to hospice. And I have been there when animals are euthanized. Get off your “high horse.”
Take the suggestion and spend a few days READING!! Come back here with your questions and concerns and a “less” holier-than-thou attitude and I am sure people will engage you in further “virtual” conversation again.
Comment by Brat Zinsmaster — August 9, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
Gina, that was also done here by PETA. Kittens I was loving on one day were in the dumpster the next day. It’s the truth. I even went to the trial. It was My vet and my friends who were so involved.
But it had happened a lot of times before that. We just couldn’t figure out who was doing it.
And these were such nice pets, cute and loving. If you had seen the pictures, well We all cried at the trial.
It’s all under [PETA kills animals]- on the web.
Comment by Trudy Jackson — August 9, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Santa Cruz has higher euthanasia numbers than surrounding counties without mandatory spay/neuter.
All over the entire country, shelters are killing far fewer animals than they did ten years ago. MSN has nothing to do with it – increased public education and voluntary s/n are what have done it, nationwide.
AB1634, as written, would have had virtually no effect on the sources of the problem – feral cats, unplanned and unwanted litters, as well as irresponsible breeders.
AB1634 exempted commercial breeding, BYBs, and “just one litter” family breeders. It would have devastated responsible breeders. The bill, as written, basically made it almost impossible to be a responsible breeder, while giving irresponsible breeding a pass.
It had particularly bad effects on new responsible breeders (who aren’t breeding yet, but have intact dogs - so they don’t need a business license), on working dog gene pools, and on rare breed gene pools – truly devastating effects, as many of those gene pools depend on animals owned by people who are not truly breeders - dogs that are later leased or used at study by breeders.
AB1634 is indeed a bad bill, and Judie Mancuso’s rants about “all breeders are the same, there is no such thing as a hobby breeder, all they care about is the money, the money, the money” ad nauseum pretty much sum up what was wrong with it. Honestly, she did more to recruit opposition to the bill than I think she may have realized.
Send a a link to one of her interviews to a breeder email list, let them listen to her for five minutes, and people from all over the country would send $.
She has no idea what a responsible breeder is, doesn’t believe there is any such thing, hasn’t heard a word through the whole discussion on why people object to the bill, and has no problem whatsoever with making it impossible for responsible breeders to continue.
No one here is objecting to voluntary spay neuter, and I believe everyone here cares about reducing euthanasias. I’d bet everyone regularly blogging here has more info on petpopulation.org, Nathan Winograd, national euthanasia statistics, and Merritt Clifton’s latest annual summaries than either Sam or Alice. Which, BTW, is probably WHY we have a different opinion. Funny thing about facts - they tend to mess with your preconceptions.
It isn’t possible for a good breeder to “operate just as you do today” if this bill passes – it isn’t even possible, in some cases, to have good assurances that rare breed and working dog gene pools will even survive. It’s that stark - existence or permanent loss.
Responsible breeders have ALREADY cut their production, and cut their production. They’re not breeding for the market. We’re at the point where it CANNOT be cut much further and have these gene pools survive.
The problem is not “too many animals.” If that was the problem, then the price would drop, commercial and BYB breeders would stop breeding, and you’d have equilibrium. Remember the law of supply and demand? When you have dogs that are practically free, and can’t find homes, and dogs that cost a thousand dollars or more, and can find homes, then there are other things going on.
The problems (plural, not singular) include unplanned and unwanted litters (which can be prevented by education and low cost s/n), a mismatch between those unplanned and unwanted litters and what people actually want, an oversupply of pits and pit mixes (30-70% of euthanized dogs in most shelters), poor “marketing” by shelters, poor “customer service” by shelters, feral cats and not enough TNR, and a host of other things.
Ever heard of Nathan Winograd? His approach actually works to fix these problems - by fixing the actual problems. He’s put a series of communities at 90% and better live adoption rates.
Mr. Winograd is doing a series of free seminars nationally. Check out http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org - you might learn something. His approach works. It works fast, it doesn’t require divisive laws, and it saves animal’s lives. The Charlottesville Virginia shelter went to 92% live exit in ONE YEAR.
Comment by Sally — August 9, 2007 @ 7:49 pm