Some surprising facts about a ‘liberal’ dog-owner
By Christie Keith
April 6, 2008
I’m tired of the assumption that people who believe in preserving heritage dog breeds, support the right of people to own, show, and breed dogs, and who want to hold government, including animal control, accountable for its actions on their behalf must also be Republicans.
I’m not. As you have probably previously noticed.
There’s also something of an assumption that anyone who fights against mandatory spay/neuter laws will also support a whole host of other things, none of which I do… like the mass commercial breeding of dogs, selling puppies and kittens through third parties (whether brokers, websites, or pet stores), or factory farming.
I not only refuse to get in bed with puppy millers in order to preserve my right to own intact purebred dogs, but I think the argument that I have to do that is crap.
Just because I advocate for something, write persuasively about it, and believe it myself, does not mean I think it’s a good idea to make it mandatory. I believe in people making up their own minds.
I also believe in speaking mine, and yes, I try to be persuasive when I do. That’s my form of advocacy.
I will not sacrifice one right — the right to speak freely about what I believe — for another — the right to preserve the Scottish Deerhound. In fact, with all due respect to my beloved breed, if it’s a contest between the two, I’ll pick the first.
I understand that some of the people I’ve stood with in opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws believe they have to support the sale of puppies in pet stores in order to be “consistent,” and in order to have the support of the pet industry for the cause. As I said to one of those people a few nights ago, I sat on the floor once with an Italian greyhound who had spent the 8 years of her life or so in a puppy producing facility. I would call it a puppy mill, even though it may well have been clean, USDA approved, and had its own little team of vets and vet techs supervising everything.
She didn’t react when you petted her. She didn’t see you when she looked at you. She didn’t care about being cuddled or walked, didn’t want a toy or even a treat. She wasn’t curious, or interested, or aware.
When I looked in her eyes, she was dead.
And that’s why I don’t care how clean the mill was, and I don’t care if a thousand studies say that puppies are just as healthy and loved if they come from a pet store as if they come from a home breeder. Because it’s not about the puppies, it’s about their mothers.
And their dead eyes.
I believe mandatory spay/neuter harms animals and the people who love them. I believe it’s designed to impede pet ownership in furtherance of an anti-pet agenda, not to reduce the number of animals killed in shelters. That’s why I fight it.
I believe that the way to change things is through free expression, speech, persuasion, and education, not legislation.
I believe that the only way to shut down puppy mills is to dry up the market, because there’s no just way to legislate them out of business without trampling on people’s freedoms, and in the end, harming the human/animal bond.
But I believe that as a liberal, and as a dog lover, and as the opponent of the mass commercial production of puppies, and someone who is against the sale of puppies and kittens in pet stores.
And I don’t find any of those things a contradiction.
An earlier version of this post appeared on my personal blog.
You go, girl!
I’m so tired of being told that if I want to support Responsible Breeders, I have to support puppymills too.
Nope. Not gonna buy it.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 6, 2008 @ 6:16 am
Based on the fact that the current laws on the books don’t have enough staff to enforce them is the other problem.
I don’t believe legislation is the answer either. It would be better to get early education about pet care.
…or we could simply administer euthanasia those humans who don’t comply and get rid of the root problem.
Kidding, kidding…but seriously this issue is a frustrating one.
Comment by Diana L Guerrero — April 6, 2008 @ 6:23 am
Amen, amen, amen!
I’m being told in another comment thread here that, if I criticize and condemn and blame puppy millers, I’m blaming “breeders,” regardless of distinctions. And that’s shifting responsibility away from where it belongs, the Bad Owners…
Comment by Lis — April 6, 2008 @ 6:24 am
The Animal Rights (AR) people pretty much have one message - “Keeping animals is bad. Our goal is to do away with the keeping of animals”. And when you have a single message, you can unify all your organizational and legislative and lobbying and - most significantly - FUNDRAISING - activities around that message - maintaining a focus and clarity that cuts through a lot of opposition like a laser. Hence the power and longevity of the AR movement.
Those of us who do not espouse the AR position, however, are much more diverse in our viewpoints. Our objectives are all over the map. Some of us are farmers, some of us are dog breeders, some of us are pet owners, and on and on. Some of us think it’s okay to house dogs in clean cages, some of us insist our dogs need to live in our homes with us. Some of us think our meat-producing livestock should be kept on open ranges, and some of us understand the reasoning behind the use of farrowing pens in the raising of pigs. And so on. We are - quite literally - all over the map.
A number of years ago some folks began to recognize this, and to call upon these different factions to begin working together so that there could be some of the same kinds of legislative effectiveness through unified efforts in place to counter the unified AR objectives .
And it sounds good - it really does. A house divided, and all that stuff. Some of the top leadership in the Parent Breed Clubs (and - as we know - in the AKC) started talking this line, and really pushing it. And basically telling us that we had to start getting in bed with the puppy millers because if we didn’t, we ALL stood to lose our rights to have dogs.
Well, I’m sorry, but I can’t buy that. I just can’t. And yes - I know the unified AR message is a POWERFUL force to fight against. But I just can’t start to tell the puppy farmers that what they do is okay as long as the cages are clean and there’s a vet on staff and so on. Because as far as I’m concerned, that would be betraying the DOGS. And it’s the *dogs* (and other pets) I care about here.
And if I lose sight of that, then what’s the point?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 6, 2008 @ 7:01 am
The frustrating thing to me is that, try as we do, Joe Public is STILL not getting it! Baseed on neighbors and the people I work with, the message is NOT getting through to the general population about puppy mills, pet shops, ‘good’ breeders and legislation. I think most pet owners want to do the right thing, but the AR people are still getting a more visible profile and doing a better job of getting their message out there (while still hiding their actual motives). Those of us that ’ believe in preserving heritage dog breeds, support the right of people to own, show, and breed dogs, and who want to hold government, including animal control, accountable for its actions’ have to do our part; some of us try to spread the massage one person at a time, and some have the opportunity to have a more public profile, like Christie and Dr. Becker and Gina, but I think everyone should be willing to spend a few minutes talking to people in their everyday life, whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Comment by cardima — April 6, 2008 @ 8:47 am
One thing that I believe will follow from the Oprah show is that those opportunities will begin presenting themselves more often - at least for a little while.
So be ready for those opportunities everyone! Change comes in ways both large and small!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 6, 2008 @ 8:54 am
Posted from one of the other threads
Lis-
If you are from the Sacramento area, here is some information for you.
In the Sacramento area, there are at least two pet shops that sell puppies from puppy mills (The puppies are generally from MO, KS, OKL, etc. To confirm the puppy sources, give them a call sometime or visit them.) They are: 1) Sunrise Pet Center, 8141 Greenback Ln.,Fair Oaks, CA 2) Pet Connection, 4534 Auburn Blvd. Sacramento CA http://sacramentopetconnection.com/
This information has been provided to the HSUS (local and national offices).
Comment by glock — April 6, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Yes, glock, and your point is?
Comment by Lis — April 6, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
These are stores that could be boycotted or picketed if you are in area.
Comment by glock — April 6, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Sorry, glock, you’ll have to take care of your local stores yourself.
Comment by Lis — April 6, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Lis-
Sorry for the possible misunderstanding. Not knowing what part of country you are from, I just shared info….
Comment by glock — April 6, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
In reading your post Christie, you touched such a nerve, and I thought of Shannon McLure of Italian Greyhound Safehouse Alliance ( formerly Addie’s Safehouse) who has spent years putting a light back in those ‘dead’ eyes, one dog at a time. One of her rescue girls named Annie served as the cover for the NoPuppyMills brochure for several years.
There is a real bone of contention between Breed Rescue groups: saving individual mill breeder dogs and thus turning $$$ over to the millers to produce more for the next auction, versus only taking in dogs from ‘private’ individuals. I think we can and should do both, but then I am a card carrying liberal Democrat whose slogan this time around is “Estrogen Rules, Testosterone Drools.”
Comment by Deb — April 6, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
I suppose that Italian greyhounds touch me extra-hard because I have sighthounds, but it seems that I’ve seen more puppy-mill-origin rescue IGs than any other breed. Sighthounds have a very particular look in their eyes and when I look at one who doesn’t have it, it guts me.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 6, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
Unfortunately they are Small and are terribly appealing. They have a grace, a porcelain prettiness, that tends to make them targets for the unscrupulous. That look guts me too. You described it so well with just that one adjective….dead.
I believe it was Robert Leighton back at the turn of the century who remarked in his book about British Breeds that IGs should only tread on velvet lawns. What a bunch of bull pucky. Guess he never met one dragging a rotted haunch or rib cage of a winter killed deer out of the woods after rolling in it first.
And yes, the preponderance of IGs in Rescue are mill bred dogs. It’s a sad fact for those of us who are besotted with the Breed. However, for all their cuteness factor and dimunitive size, they are sighthounds to the core. Without proper exercise as pups to help them learn about their bodies, they are subject to leg breaks, and they aren’t easy to housetrain without determination and consistency on the part of the owner, and they are high energy Thus, they end up in Rescue because the undeducated saw this cute puppy in the petstore or on the Internet and just had to have it without doing any research!
Sorry to rant. I can picture that mill brood bitch in my mind’s eye.
I love all sighthounds. i think they are the most spectacular, demanding, intelligent dogs on earth. To convince a sighthound to work with you as a teammate is an awesome achievement.
Comment by Deb — April 6, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Conservative or liberal?
Conserving heirloom breeds to the best of our ability would be the issue here. If you’re conservative, you would want to do just that. Puppy millers don’t. They are “liberal” with their breeding policies. They incur costs for society by producing puppies that need extensive vet care. Then there are the dogs that wind up in shelters because their owners don’t want spend “liberally” for vet care. Thus, we spend “liberally” to cover the costs of puppy millers. I guess that’s why I’m currently a “conservative” without party. Republicans haven’t been conservative since Teddy Roosevelt ;)
Comment by C.L.H. — April 6, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
Ha — I ripped you off even before you could rip yourself off. You know I love you, right :) Glad to see this post getting around a bit more.
P
Comment by PBurns — April 7, 2008 @ 3:52 am
I’m a conservative liberal libertarian … and proud of it!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 7, 2008 @ 9:38 am
I was in complete agreement with you until here:
>
It’s about the puppies too. (I know you know this, but I’m going to say it anyway). Like their parents, puppies born in mills don’t have their socialization and developmental needs met. Reputable breeders provide things such as early neural stimulation, socialization, and opportunities for puppies to develop proprioception skills before they leave for their new homes.
Comment by K. A. S. — April 7, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
Um, the part where I quoted you was cut out. I was in agreement with you until this point:
(quote)
And that’s why I don’t care how clean the mill was, and I don’t care if a thousand studies say that puppies are just as healthy and loved if they come from a pet store as if they come from a home breeder. Because it’s not about the puppies, it’s about their mothers.
(end quote; see above post for rest)
Comment by K. A. S. — April 7, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
It’s a moot point because there aren’t a thousand studies showing that. But if there were, I wouldn’t care.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 7, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
It’s interesting to me how much these mandatory s/n advocates focus on breeders. I don’t care what statistic or estimate you’re reading, purebred dogs and cats make up the smallest percentage of sheltered/stray or unwanted pets.
If the goal is to reduce the number of unwanted pets, doesn’t it make sense to concentrate first on the population of pets/people making the biggest contribution to the population?
I mean, isn’t it obvious that the vast majority of pets in America are pets born of unplanned litters? Sure, breeders contribute to the overall number of pets on the planet but purebred pets don’t exist in numbers anywhere near that of pets born as strays, into feral colonies or of otherwise unplanned, mixed breed litters.
I’m not suggesting purpose-bred pets are immune to homelessness, I’m just wondering why all the noise about mandatory s/n is so focused on breeders.
What do these laws and proposed laws do to reduce the number of litters in the feral and stray population? What about the immeasurable number of pets born because their families truly could not afford the surgery? And what about that guy who keeps bringing litter after litter to the shelter each year because ..“well, they take ‘em off my hands for me”….is he being targeted as aggressively as the breeders out there producing planned and wanted litters?
I don’t know, maybe it’s just an “easier to find, easier to fine” situation. Hobby/show breeders generally have kennel names and paper trails and addresses….
I guess I just believe that, in a perfect world, all pets would be born of a planned litter and into an ethical and responsible breeder’s home. Of course, I love a “mutt” just as much as any other creature but I support responsible, ethical breeding because I don’t like the alternatives; pets born of unplanned, unwanted litters or no pets born at all.
P.S: I realize not all breeders are ethical or responsible. My point is that NO pet should be born of an unplanned/unwanted litter and MOST are.
Comment by Joy — May 11, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
I am put in mind of a friend who lives in a community with a strict leash law. She trains and shows her dog in Obedience, which requires offlead work, so it is always a challenge for her to find places to train where she won’t get ticketed. Generally, she finds out of the way open areas and goes there in the early mornings, but even so, she’s received warnings from police, despite being able to demonstrate her dog’s reliable recall upon request.
One morning while receiving such a warning, she spied a dog off running freely in the distance and asked “Why don’t you go after that one?”.
The officer simply answered “Because I can’t find an owner for that dog, but I can for yours.”
Maddening.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 12, 2008 @ 6:53 am
That’s like the park rangers along the American River here in Sacramento who ticketed a 80-year-old woman and her 16-year-old dog, while ignoring hoardes of drunken weekend partiers (it’s illegal to drink in the park), underage drinkers (duh), and people having sex in public or throwing used diapers and beer bottles on the ground.
All of these lawbreakers were within sight when the ranger tagged the slow-moving pair.
It was MUCH easier to confront an 80-year-old woman and her old dog who shuffles along not three feet behind her. Why hassle a bunch of drunken yahoos (not from the neighborhood) who might give you grief when you can meet your ticket quota with an uncomplaining old woman from the neighborhood who walks for her and her dog’s health every day?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 12, 2008 @ 7:06 am
The elderly woman is lucky she didn’t get tasered…
Comment by slt — May 12, 2008 @ 7:10 am
I don’t know how to quote a post here but what Gina said about meeting ticket quotas….
…Right! And the sad rest of the story is that I am certain the proponents of MSN will (if they aren’t already) hold up the “effectiveness” of their programs by quoting meaningless numbers rather than actual impact.
I can just see it now…if a hundred breeders are targeted and fined, they’ll use that old wooly math of “2 litters of 4 pups and each pup has 2 more litters in 7 years = a kagillion dogs”…to boast their program “saved” tens of thousands of pets from being born.
But will the numbers tell the real story; that these prevented births were of dogs who would have been planned/wanted and of a population LEAST likely to ever end up homeless or sheltered?
…or of the existing and proposed MSN legislation in which the breeders can pay fines rather than be forced to sterilize: generally those fines are collected and used to S/N other pets. The MSN advocates can then boast that x-number of pets were saved from existence… but will they admit the program was funded entirely by breeders targeted by them for nothing more than visibility?
And if a breeder complies with MSN fines, that person is one of the few responsible and ethical enough to care what happens to their kennel license or whatever other compliance threats exist. Less scrupulous breeders will just lie.
I hate to rant but also…what’s crazy about this is that almost all programs or proposed programs I’ve seen like this allocate the collected fines to pay for S/N subsidiary programs for shelters/rescues.
Sounds nice and generous but….in any responsible and ethical shelter or rescue, NO pet is at risk of going on to reproduce. (shouldn’t the money instead go to needy families with pets or feral colony caretakers?)
In responsible No-Kills, all pets are adopted and no pet leaves intact and in shelters/rescues where some pets aren’t afforded adoption, unadopted pets leave dead. Either way, adopted or dead, they don’t go on to reproduce.
So, in a community with MSN collecting penalties from breeders and allocating them to subsidize shelters/rescues, all that is happening is that some breeders are paying for some shelters/rescues to S/N pets that would have otherwise NEVER gone on to reproduce.
I can see how that would save these groups money…but how does it curb pet overpopulation?
Comment by Joy — May 12, 2008 @ 9:27 am