Petland tries a new(ish) PR strategy: Blame the HSUS

Do you like this story?

Petland tries a new(ish) PR strategy: Blame the HSUS

By Gina Spadafori

January 29, 2009

Seems Petland thinks it’s the fault of the HSUS that the retail chain buys from puppy-mill scum. See, the chain seemingly can’t figure out which of their high-volume puppy-pumpers keep their animals in hideous, crap-filled, exposed-to-the-elements conditions — as opposed to merely miserable, lonely and nerve-jarringly loud ones for all their sad, deprived and empty lives — because …

… wait for it …

Petland says the HSUS won’t turn over its reports. In an open letter to the HSUS, Petland says:

Petland is continuing its stand against substandard breeders. As such, Petland has repeatedly, over the last two months, asked the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to provide information that will lead to the relief of numerous distressed animals allegedly identified by your organization in your supposed report. If there was an 8 month investigation and the last two months of unfulfilled requests for information are included, then this is a period spanning where animals were suffering and HSUS did nothing. The HSUS has [not] provided this specific information to Petland or to the USDA.

Oh puh-lease. Petland, if you were interested in “continuing [your] stand against substandard breeders” you would stop selling puppies, and like Petco and PetSmart you would offer space for local shelter and rescue groups to do adoption outreach. You would also quit blaming your shameful business practices on the folks who blew the whistle on you.

No reputable, ethical breeder produces puppies by the dozens and then sells them for sale through a third party (or more, if you count middlemen). No reputable, ethical breeder allows anyone except herself to decide where her puppies go. And all reputable, ethical breeders are there for life to help puppy buyers and take a puppy or dog back if need be.

By the very fact that your puppy-pumpers put the “merchandise” into the pipeline to your stores, you are dealing with substandard breeders. Maybe not by the standards of the U.S. Department of Agriculture – which has no business regulating this sick “industry” — but by any other long-standing and well-established standards of optimum care, socialization and development for an animal that’s meant to be a family pet.

But hey, it’s not as if this BS hasn’t played out this way before. Remember the HSUS bust on the slaughterhouse in Southern California, where dairy cows who couldn’t get up were hit again and again with cattle prods, jabbed with forklifts, shot in the face with high-volume water hoses and more? Remember that? That little torturefest broke the feeble food safety law against “downer” cattle, leading to the largest beef recall in history. (I know, I know: There have been so many food safety crises that they’re all starting to blend together. Here’s a link to help you remember.)

And what did the slaughterhouse say? They blamed the HSUS for not turning over the evidence sooner, as if turning the tapes over to the U.S. Department of Agriculture would have had more impact then dropping them in the media’s laps.

Petland, your crisis PR firm may have advised you to blame the HSUS, too, but until you stop selling puppies, we know who is to blame for the suffering.

It’s not the HSUS. It’s you.

And we certainly know who the victims are.

It’s not you. It’s the puppies.

Enough with the PRspeak. Enough with the false concern. Honestly, I don’t know how you people sleep at night.

Take the high road: Stop selling puppies. Whether they come from a clean puppy mill or a filthy one, it’s still a bad deal for the puppies, their puppy-pumping parents, and the people who choose your “merchandise” instead of saving a shelter dog or buying a healthy, well-socialized puppy from a truly reputable breeder.

***

OK, now every else …

If you’re looking to add a puppy to your family, don’t support this sick industry. You may luck out and get a good pet, but by buying your dog from a puppy-mill retail outlet you’ve doomed your pet’s mother to a life as a production unit, never to know love or the joy of being part of a family.

The people at Petland may be OK with that, but no true animal-lover would be. So just walk on by.

Filed under: animals: pets,puppy mills — Gina Spadafori @ 4:49 pm

Comments (49)

49 Comments »

Hey, they had to try to weasel out of it somehow :>)

Comment by Selma — January 29, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
PS Is there anybody out there who believes that pet-shop pups don’t come from creepy places?

Comment by Selma — January 29, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
Oh c’mon, Gina. Tell us what you really think.

(Fwiw, the next edition of Housetraining For Dummies will retain the no pet-store-puppies section. I fought for it eight years ago, and if I have to, I’ll do it again.)

Comment by Susan — January 29, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
That’s bad, but I can top that:
Here’s just the beginning of Ingrid’s latest spew:
“As someone who has spent 25 years rescuing pit bulls from conditions we wouldn’t visit on our worst enemies…”

Did you all know that PETA rescues pit bulls? Considering that they run only ONE shelter, and kill 90% of the dogs there, I can’t fathom in what universe Ingrid lives. but it is certainly close to the one where Petland lives. It’s the last stop past FantasyLand, the one known as DelusionAndLiesLand

Comment by EmilyS — January 29, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
I would love to get a crack at doing a third edition of “Dogs For Dummies.”

I lost the puppy-mill promo-section fight on the second edition. (And you will not be at all surprised which editor insisted on keeping the puppy-millers happy.)

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 29, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
EmilyS … give us a link.

Honestly, I think the PETA people just say anything that pops into their heads. By the time they’re proven as liars by the simplest use of Teh Google, enough people have heard the lie (but not the truth) that the damage is done.

That’s why I love PetaKillsAnimals.com, the documented truth, promoted in every corner of the Interwebs by the Center For Consumer Freedom, a group every bit as sleazy and well-funded as PETA.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 29, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Let it be known, I am as suspicious of the HSUS as the next one, and I am vocal about it. And while I certainly agree with Gina on this one (IE. Petland is responible for their actions), I do feel compelled to point out that Petland’s claim (that the HSUS isn’t providing them with any info from “the investigation”) does go to show how little accountability resides with the organization.

But damn it all, if I don’t get just as fired up at the folks that make the HSUS’(and similar groups) agenda that much easier to push into legislation - and for no other reason than a lack of respect for the animals, and the consumer.

————————

Selma (5:02pm),

You’d be surprised. While some are “in the know”, SOO MANY are not. Sigh.

Donovan

Comment by Donovan — January 29, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
I’ve already mocked Auntie Ingrid:
http://caveat.blogware.com/blo.....74400.html

Here’s the link to the piece in the LA Daily News:

http://www.dailynews.com/editorial/ci_11576438

It’s the same tired piece she’s been using for years. Don’t miss the comments! People are onto Ingrid, big-time.

Comment by Selma — January 29, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
As long as certain twisted Companies feel the need to lie, cheat, and spin to achieve their ends some of us need to keep pointing it out.

It’s politically incorrect and guaranteed to hurt. But it’s the truth.

Comment by Steve — January 29, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
It’s disappointing to see yet another company passing the buck rather than standing up and being accountable for their actions and fixing the problem.

I wish corporations and PR firms would realize that they gain more credibility and consumer trust by being accountable and acknowledging their mistakes, than by pretending that the problem didn’t exist or that it wasn’t their fault, when everyone with even an ounce of common sense knows otherwise.

Comment by Anlina Sheng — January 29, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
Selma wrote: “It’s the same tired piece she’s been using for years. Don’t miss the comments! People are onto Ingrid, big-time.”

I particularly like this one: “I read in the Bible that Pit Bulls are instruments of Satan. To all owners of these toys of Satan, please be careful and do not let them in your house to defecate or soil your fine rugs.” LOL

Thanks for the link to the original; I only had it on a repost.

Comment by EmilyS — January 29, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
Thank you for continuing to follow this story! For more scary stuff from Petland, check out their “informational” videos. http://www.petland.com/video/
Ug!

Comment by Jeanne — January 29, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
One of my friends (who happens to be a vet!) talked me into going into a Petland on the day before Christmas eve watch her dog doing a long sit and down for practice.

I have never any so appalling. The place was jampacked with people buying puppies probably the dumbest time to buy a dog and other pets and someone even had a parrot on layway. Yikes!

I got out of there as soon as I could and gave her a talking to later, hopefully I convinced her to never darken there door again, and I certainly won’t fall for it.

I honestly figured if she was going there, they weren’t selling pets anymore. Yeah, sometimes I live under a rock when it comes to pet stuff, but I was really hoping.

Comment by Kathleen Weaver — January 29, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
Kathleen, was your vet friend TRYING to bring home some parvo?

Comment by H. Houlahan — January 29, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
Why doesn’t someone from Petland just watch the video and write down the names of the kennels they see on the screen. That would give them a starting point if they were truly interested in knowing whether those breeders, which most would agree are substandard, are suppliers to any of their stores.

The fact is Petland is not really disputing the fact that they do indeed use puppy mills. Every one of their responses refers to the conditions the puppies are kept in AFTER they reach the store.

Now they are using the classic PR bait and switch: changing the story by attacking their accusers.

If Petland was really concerned with the health of animals, they would be on the offensive to make certain these allegations could never be brought against them by doing one very simple thing: publishing their “Humane Care Guidelines” for all to see, then enforcing them thereby ensuring the health and safety of the breeder dogs.

Or, they could just stop selling puppies.

Either of those would solve the problem more effectively than their current plan of actively and aggressively trying to change the subject.

Comment by Sharon — January 30, 2009 @ 8:15 am
I think Petland is just jumping on the bandwagon of blaming HSUS for everything.

While I understand the concerns about HSUS recent direction, it bothers me to see them being used as the universal excuse. But that seems to be becoming frighteningly common these days. Thanks to groups like the NAIA — which has been a great supporter of Petland, and which I see as the extreme opposite of groups like PETA — the lines are now so blurred between animal welfare and animal rights, it’s become almost impossible for many people to know what they should believe any more. As someone who works in animal welfare as well as being in dogs, I see a lot of this from both sides on a regular basis.

For instance, I read the following on a message board yesterday, in response to concerns about the puppymill bust in Washington state last week:

“I read about this operation and while I agree that this is a very bad breeding situation, I also wonder what impact will be felt by good breeders?

“I think most breeders are finding it more difficult to place their PQ dogs to the point of not breeding litters and saying to themselves “its the economy, I will resume my breeding program when the economy gets better…. Yes, the economy does play a role, but more than the economy, in my opinion it is the ever growing popularity of buying pets from shelters, rescues.

“There is a growing stigma against getting a pet from a breeder. As this trend continues to grow, more breeders will slow/halt their programs and this is what the AR groups want the most an end to all breeding period. They want to see purebreds become extinct. how better to accomplish their goal than thru media and legislation, make the public feel they are doing the right thing by adopting from a place where the dog comes to them spayed, or neutered. And make the public think they are doing a bad thing by getting their pet from even the best possible breeder.”

…and they then go on to mind-boggling detail of the horrors of AR… All this in response to genuine concern about the welfare of a whole bunch of dogs that were clearly in a bad situation, in the possession of the worst kind of money-grubbers posing as breeders.

So what are we to believe these days, that it’s better to allow a bad situation to exist so it doesn’t cause problems for the good guys? That seems to be the message that comes from the NAIA, whose leader was totally opposed to last year’s proposed Washington State Consumer Protection Bill that would have held commercial breeders legally accountable for the health of the puppies they sell. They felt it was unfair to hold commercial breeders to health standards while exempting charitable rescues, even though the rescues are clearly not in it for the money.

While I find Petland’s PR tactics as appalling as you do, I’m just trying to point out that it really comes as no surprise. Obfuscation seems to be the name of the game these days.

Comment by stellaluna — January 30, 2009 @ 9:48 am
Obfuscation seems to be the name of the game these days.

Comment by stellaluna — January 30, 2009

True, and all that obfuscation means we will always have good, steady work here at PetConnection!

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 30, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
LOL! Well, at least you can see the humor in it.

Sometimes I think a sense of humor is the only thing that gets me through life these days.

Comment by stellaluna — January 30, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
Gina, thinking of these innocent dogs always makes me so sad. Besides refusing to buy puppy-mill bred dogs, and spreading the word, is there anything else we can do?

Comment by Peggy Frezon — January 30, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
I think the Center for Consumer “Freedom” is more than a shade to the darker side of almost any other activist group that the average consumer might consider as being loathesome.

http://www.greenisthenewred.co.....le-by-son/

Comment by NotSoGreen — January 30, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
I think you’re absolutely right about the CCF.

But … I also think PETA is more than a shade to the darker side of any other animal activist group that the average consumer might consider as being loathesome, as well.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 30, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
I think you’re both right. It’s the extremists on both ends who make like very miserable for those of us who reside in the middle.

And if I had a dime for every time I’ve heard that old saw from Dante (about “the darkest reaches in hell…”), or the Pastor Niemoeller quote, I’d be rich.

There is no love lost between me and the likes of PETA, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to jump into bed with Petland, NAIA, the CCF, et al.

I have to believe there is some rational middle ground somewhere… if there wasn’t, life just wouldn’t be worth the cost of the high blood-pressure medication.

Comment by stellaluna — January 30, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Thanks to groups like the NAIA — which has been a great supporter of Petland, and which I see as the extreme opposite of groups like PETA

How did you arrive at that conclusion? NAIA has a massive website with thousands of pages. Petland appears just once there, an attaboy for standing up to HSUS. NAIA’s sister organization that lobbies is NAIA Trust, and their website doesn’t mention Petland anywhere. This makes NAIA a “great supporter of Petland” in your mind?

Petland can take care of themselves. NAIA has their hands full trying to defeat mandatory sterilization and other AR-sponsored laws that directly impact pet owners, working dog handlers, and hobby breeders, making shelter statistics widely available, and with promoting responsible pet friendly ordinances. That’s not everything they do, but it’s a large majority of it. You may disagree with them on some issues, and agree on others, but NAIA is not extreme.

If you want to see the extreme in the anti-AR movement, I can direct you to discussion groups where you’ll find rants from tin-foil hat wearers who imagine an AR conspiracy in every action of Animal Control against a breeder. People who are nearly as the-ends-justifies-the-means fast and loose with the facts as the ARs themselves. Who ring the all-hands-on-deck alarm when they crosspost nonsense from the wingnut rumor mill. Oh, and you can read their attacks on the NAIA for being an appeaser.

Comment by LauraS — January 30, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Oh, mostly just following the saga of the AKC’s “High Volume Breeders Committee” relationship with the Hunte Corporation over the past however-many years. And reading the stuff on the NAIA’s website since they started up, and paying attention to who’s in their bed. As well as paying attention to the news.

I know what NAIA does, believe me — I wasn’t born yesterday. We all draw the line somewhere, right? And we’re all entitled to our own opinions. I just happen to prefer my own opinions to those of either end of the animal use/animal rights spectrum.

Comment by stellaluna — January 30, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
I know what NAIA does, believe me …. And we’re all entitled to our own opinions.
My opinion is that you don’t know what NAIA does.

Comment by LauraS — January 30, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
I just happen to prefer my own opinions to those of either end of the animal use/animal rights spectrum.

Comment by stellaluna — January 30, 2009

I’m with you.

I can’t tell you how many people have told me that we have to allow puppy-millers and factory farmers because if we don’t, PETA wins and it’s all slippery slope to the end of all domestic animals.

Now, PETA is all about the end of domestic animals. But that doesn’t mean they get there. I don’t buy the “if PETA says X, we must say Y” approach of the NAIA. And I don’t think good breeders should get into bed with puppy-millers, and that’s what was going on when the AKC was trying to slick the high-volume breeder plan through.

As I’ve said to Christie a few times, I feel like that old Steeler’s Wheel song (and yes, I’m dating myself):

“Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right; here I am: Stuck in the middle with you.”

I don’t buy “with-us-or-agin’ us” attitudes in any area — not red or blue state, not we get to own bazookas or they take our guns away, and not everyone breeds any way they please or all breeders are toast.

Once these groups find a wedge issue, discussion stops, fund-raising begins and nothing gets solved.

There’s always a third way … but it’s not likely to be a profitable for the fear-mongers who run special-interest groups.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 30, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
Gina, despite the propaganda coming from animal rights extremists that the NAIA is an industry front group, or your insinuation that they use wedge issues for fund-raising, neither of these allegations holds up to scrutiny. One can find their Form 990 reports on guidestar.org. For 2007, the NAIA had just $110,986 in income. Almost all of which was annual membership dues.

By comparison, the vegetable-lusting pet-slaughtering folks at PETA raked in $30,411,127 in 2007.

There’s no 2007 Form 990 on guidestar for HSUS, though their 2006 form shows $100,775,962 in income. But with all their shell companies, it’s difficult to ascertain the totality of HSUS’s income.

I don’t buy the “if PETA says X, we must say Y” approach of the NAIA.

That isn’t NAIA’s approach.

Comment by LauraS — January 30, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
I believe the NAIA plays into the hands of animal-rights extremists with the support of animal-cruelties (puppy mills, factory farms)I find abhorrent.

I have followed this since the seminal “The Hijacking of the Humane Movement,” and I disagree with the approach of jumping into bed with animal abusers to “protect” good breeders from animal-rights extremists and their agenda, hidden or not.

You’ve been around here long enough to know I am believe in primacy, compassion and stewardship. I have two AKC champions begging for breakfast besides me right now, one of whom will be bred soon. I have competed in obedience trails and hunt tests. I have been to Westminster a half-dozen times. In other words, I am a pretty ordinary dog fancier (except for being a syndicated columnist and author, of course).

I believe in humane and sustainable handling of meat animals and I have no objections to ethical hunting, but I do not believe in the mass-production of dogs, no matter how clean the puppy-mills, because that makes a mockery of our claims to hold dogs as worthy of a special relationship with us.

In short, what the nut bags at PETA do have no relevance on how I believe animals should be treated, and unlike the National Animal Interest Alliance, I do not set my moral agenda by trading what I believe is right for what’s politically expedient. Unless the NAIA really does believe in the mass production of puppies, in which case … well, shame on them.

Your choices are your own.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 31, 2009 @ 7:58 am
Call me crazy but if Petland is such an honorable and caring retailer of puppies, wouldn’t they maintain records of all the little lives they’ve traded? Wouldn’t they have records documenting from whom, when, where and in what condition puppies were purchased?

In their letter to HSUS, they are demanding “information relating to the 17,000 puppies sold in the 21-Petland stores over the 8-month period of your investigation.”

Why doesn’t Petland themselves just pull out that 8-month period worth of records and show the world that list of “wonderful Petland-approved” breeders?

Comment by Joy — January 31, 2009 @ 9:10 am
Gina, NAIA does not support or defend puppy mill abusers, and they are not making a morality vs. political expediency tradeoff . No matter how many times these claims are repeated here or elsewhere, it doesn’t make them true.

NAIA opposes animal cruelty, animal abuse, and animal neglect — by abusive puppy millers or by anybody else. That’s the talk that they walk.

Breeders who violate existing laws against animal cruelty, animal abuse, and/or animal neglect should be stopped, according to NAIA. It’s on their website, for anyone who cares to learn. It’s contained in the local ordinances they have helped pass.

The combination of hobby breeding, backyard breeding, and oops breedings does not come close to meeting the demand for puppies in America. Many puppies for the pet market are supplied by commercial breeders in America, and an increasing number — 300,000 per year according to the CDC — are imported from foreign countries.

I wish it weren’t so. I wish responsible hobby breeders could supply all of the demand for pet puppies. But they don’t come remotely close to producing enough.

It’s become a matter of bragging rights among hobby breeders, that the less often they breed the more responsible they are. Well, duh, that sort of makes it inevitable that there would be a shortage of puppies produced by responsible hobby breeders. Ironically, in their pursuit of responsible perfection, these hobby breeders created yet more demand for commercial dog breeding.

NAIA believes that commercial dog breeding is not going away anytime soon because there is no other source that can supply the demand. Outlaw it, and the alternative is not any better — an increase in the thousands of underaged, sick, abused puppies already being illegally smuggled into America from Mexico every year.

NAIA believe breeders who commit animal cruelty, whether they are small scale or large scale breeders, should be prosecuted as existing laws already mandate. They believe that commercial dog breeding should be reformed, not outlawed.

NAIA says they have seen, firsthand and on the ground, real progress in recent years in reforming commercial dog breeding, with the worst horrors being far less common. I am in no position to dispute that claim, and I doubt if you are either. The ends-justify-the-means twisting of the truth fund-raising tactics of HSUS and PETA, on top of their advocacy and practice of the unnecessary mass killing of pets, leaves them with zero credibility, IMO.

Obviously ‘real progress’ doesn’t translate into ‘problem fixed, we can go home now’.

Unless the NAIA really does believe in the mass production of puppies, in which case … well, shame on them.

I have doubts that large-scale commercial dog breeding for the pet market can provide the incentives or environment to produce puppies of the quality that responsible hobby breeders can produce. That doesn’t mean I think it’s impossible, that doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal, and that doesn’t mean I “believe” in it.

I also think that many hobby breeders don’t breed responsibly, but I don’t jump to a conclusion that all hobby breeders should be vilified, unreasonably restricted, or outlawed.

This isn’t a matter of whether one “believes” in the mass production of puppies. It’s a matter of how best to respond to the fact that they exist, and aren’t going away anytime soon.

High-volume quality breeders of working/performance dogs have existed in the past and still exist to some degree. It’s been common for quality dogs in some hunting breeds to be bred that way. I know of one high-volume breeder of working dogs who has his breeding bitches dispersed into many individual homes, so they can enjoy the benefits of a home environment. Guide dog and assistance dog groups mass produce quality dogs. Responsible quality breeding in high volumes is not impossible. Are you opposed to all of those things too? They do, after all, involve the “mass production of puppies.”

If commercial pet dog breeding is going to disappear, I believe that will happen in part by educating the public. There’s been progress on this front. When I was a kid, almost every retail pet shop sold puppies. Now, that’s far less common. But unfortunately, new outlets like Internet sales have sprung up.

Nathan Winograd suggests that the reduction in the number of retail pet shops that sell puppies correlates with the increase in shelter adoptions. Makes sense to me, since hobby breeding and oops breedings sure haven’t filled the gap.

Part of what prevents commercial dog breeding from going away is that it’s too damn hard for a pet buyer to figure out how to find a responsible hobby breeder, the subject of an interesting discussion here that Christie kicked off.

BTW, the seminal book is “The Hijacking of the Humane Movement”. You got both the title and the point of the book wrong.

Comment by LauraS — January 31, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
I found “Hijacking the Humane Movement” a real embarrassment, in more ways than one.

“I believe the NAIA plays into the hands of animal-rights extremists…”

Agreed, Gina. I think that it’s a huge mistake for legitimate, ethical dog people (cat people, etc.) to band together with less scrupulous people just to create “strength in numbers.”

The pack mentality that makes it okay to attack and accuse those who show appropriately compassionate concern about animals in need or distress is so obviously self-serving, and the kind of thing that the ARs thrive on pointing out and using against us.

We should never, ever, be put in a position where we appear to not care about the welfare of the animals we love. When we make excuses for mass-production of puppies, the cruelties of factory farming and other things that we would find horrifying when we consider them on a personal level, we are really weakening our own case, imho.

I am very thankful there is room for more than one point of view here. It’s quite refreshing.

Comment by stellaluna — January 31, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
NAIA … believe[s] that commercial dog breeding should be reformed, not outlawed.

Comment by LauraS — January 31, 2009

THAT is supporting puppy mills. There is no reform of high-volume breeding operations that can ever match what a reputable breeder (or a good shelter/rescue foster home) offers in terms of care and socialization.

If it’s acceptable to you, well, that’s your business. You’re entitled to your opinion.

Book title corrected. The point of it I got just fine, thanks. I disagree with the course taken since by reputable breeders because — once again — by signing off on cleaner puppy mill we are proving a lie to the claim that we “reputable breeders” care about anything except our own dogs.

“I know of one high-volume breeder of working dogs who has his breeding bitches dispersed into many individual homes, so they can enjoy the benefits of a home environment. Guide dog and assistance dog groups mass produce quality dogs.”

This is a straw man and you know it.

You can argue this until you’re blue in the fingers, Laura, but you’re not getting me to sign on to your intense PETA hatred enough to condemn generations of dogs to miserable lives as production units in high-volume operations so you can “win.”

I reject the premise of “you’re with us or agin’ us.” I perfectly capable of thinking for myself, and frankly, it would be nice if a few more people at both extremes tried it.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 31, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Gina, you’re the one here who’s tossing around extreme accusations against those who don’t agree with you. A person had better be “with us” (i.e. agree with you) that high-volume pet dog breeding will always equal animal abuse and should be outlawed, or by golly they’re “agin us” (i.e. against you). The price for being “agin us” (you) is to be accused of being a supporter of animal cruelty.

I don’t give a rat’s ass if you disagree with those who believe large-scale commercial dog breeding can or should be reformed rather than outlawed. My issue is your tendency to attack those who disagree with your opinion as being in bed with animal abusers.

It’s a logical fallacy to conclude that because someone doesn’t think that an activity should be outlawed that they therefore must “support” it. There’s lots of things in this world that I dislike and don’t “support,” but I don’t think should be outlawed either: most pornography, extreme rudeness, Hummer H2s, Rush Limbaugh, entertainment masquerading as news reporting, conformation dog shows, jet skis, leaf blowers, etc.

There is no reform of high-volume breeding operations that can ever match what a reputable breeder (or a good shelter/rescue foster home) offers in terms of care and socialization.

Once again, your sweeping conclusions about high-volume dog breeding includes some quite responsible and respectable working dog breeding. And no, it’s not a straw man. Words matter. Besides, if high-volume working dog breeding programs exist that provide good care and socialization, then it’s at least possible do to it with commercial pet dog breeding too.

I agree that responsible hobby breeders are much more likely to give the care and socialization that puppies derive a lifetime of benefits from. I don’t “support” large-scale commercial pet dog breeding. We part ways on what we think should be done about things we dislike, and especially on what we think should be outlawed.

Comment by LauraS — January 31, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
Once again, your sweeping conclusions about high-volume dog breeding includes some quite responsible and respectable working dog breeding. And no, it’s not a straw man. Words matter. Besides, if high-volume working dog breeding programs exist that provide good care and socialization, then it’s at least possible do to it with commercial pet dog breeding too.

Sorry, no, doesn’t follow. High-volume commercial breeders are not going to disperse their animals to individual homes for the breeding dogs to live and the puppies to be raised in home environments, because it’s not cost-effective for an operation whose goal is maximization of profit.

It’s a lot more profitable to keep them in one place, in cages of a size just large enough that they do not legally require to be taken out and exercised, to breed the bitches every single heat until they stop producing adequately, to not “waste” money on genetic testing, to give them no human contact that isn’t necessary for minimal vet care and for bringing two dogs together to breed, to ship the puppies young enough that they reach the pet store at their maximum cuteness point, because that maximizes quick sales and so maximizes profits.

They maybe clean. They may give the animals adequate basic vet care. But it’s not humane for the breeding dogs, and those aren’t the conditions in which you raise animals intended to be human companions.

NAIA supports large-scale commercial breeding as an activity that ought to remain legal. Most people who actually care about dogs, do not. You cannot come up with a description of what actually happens in large-scale commercial breeding operations, that will cause many of us to regard it as something other than animal abuse. It’s as simple as that, really. You are entitled to your opinion. And other people are entitled to regard you as, at best, deeply misguided. Geting hysterical about that opinion won’t help you change people’s minds.

Comment by Lis — January 31, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
I’m actually against making high volume dog breeding illegal while staunchly opposing it at the same time. I oppose it for all the reasons Gina does, but I don’t see this as the kind of thing laws are good at reforming/eradicating. It’s like drugs. Outlawing the behavior is totally pointless. You have to solve the problem in another way.

In other words, “reform” and “outlaw” aren’t the only two choices. I want to eradicate high volume dog breeding by making it unprofitable and socially unacceptable.

I do, however, object to my tax dollars being used to SUPPORT the mass production of puppies. I think that should end. It’s not an activity we should be encouraging as a matter of public policy.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 31, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
Geting hysterical about that opinion won’t help you change people’s minds.

Nor does hurling baseless insults at them.

Comment by LauraS — January 31, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
The issue is similar to the drug trade. The only possible long term way to address the situation is from the demand side, which this blog seems to be doing every way the bloggers know how, more power to them all.

When demand finally tanks through education and consciousness raising and it isn’t profitable enough anymore, the slimeball puppymillers who make their living off the suffering of living creatures will have to go out and get real jobs, preferably ones that don’t involve other sentient beings.

Humane breeding of dogs on a large commercial scale is an oxymoron, impossible BY DEFINITION.
To believe otherwise is delusional. IMHO.

Comment by Susan Fox — January 31, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
I had never heard of National Animal Interest Alliance before this post. So I not only asked several of my responsible breeder friends, I also searched it out on Teh Google. The breeders I spoke with who were aware of it are of the opinion NAIA is an organization primarily of and for commercial breeders/high volume breeders/show millers/millers whatever you wish to call them and I do not support commercial breeding under any PC name.
Teh Google search was even more enlightening. That lead me to the Center for Media and Democracy, which had an interesting if somewhat opinionated review of NAIA, which lead me to ActivistCash which of course had an equally ‘interesting’ opinion on CMD and PRWatch, it’s parent org. Teh Google is a great thing, god wat.
I now have formed from the information provided, an opinion about NAIA, and it’s goals. I will not be giving it any credence. As always, this Blog has contributed to furthering my education. Thank you!

Comment by Anne T — February 1, 2009 @ 5:32 am
We part ways on what we think should be done about things we dislike, and especially on what we think should be outlawed.

Comment by LauraS — January 31, 2009 @ 8:00 pm

I’m actually against making high volume dog breeding illegal while staunchly opposing it at the same time. I oppose it for all the reasons Gina does, but I don’t see this as the kind of thing laws are good at reforming/eradicating. It’s like drugs. Outlawing the behavior is totally pointless. You have to solve the problem in another way.

In other words, “reform” and “outlaw” aren’t the only two choices. I want to eradicate high volume dog breeding by making it unprofitable and socially unacceptable.

I do, however, object to my tax dollars being used to SUPPORT the mass production of puppies. I think that should end. It’s not an activity we should be encouraging as a matter of public policy.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 31, 2009

Laura,

Do you even READ what others write, or just jump in screaming? I never said, nor am I in favor if, the outlawing of breeding. Why? Mostly because it doesn’t work (I’m with Christie on this), and because I don’t trust lawmakers/regulators to be able to cut through the animal-rights crap to be able to figure out how to define what’s acceptable and what’s not.

I also believe that in siding with high-volume breeders (“reformed” or not), reputable breeders have played into the hands of the pet extinction forces. Why should PETA not believe “a breeder is a breeder is a breeder” when the groups speaking for good breeders are so happy to be in bed with the scum? Changing the sheets on that bed so they’re clean isn’t going to change the relationship.

Laura, I get everything you’re saying, and I disagree. I would suggest both positions are pretty well set, and we agree to disagree.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 1, 2009 @ 7:10 am
What I just love (NOT!) is when I get told that because I object to NAIA’s defense of commercial puppy producers, that I’ve obviously bought into the AR propaganda.

Um - guess what? I decided that NAIA’s position on this subject made me extremely uncomfortable all on my own - before I was even aware that the AR groups even knew who NAIA was. I formed this opinion way back in the early days of NAIA, around the time of the publication of the AKC High Volume Breeders report and all the unsavory implications contained therein.

What the NAIA folks were saying at that time was that the AR forces present a united - and therefore very strong and effective front (which is true) and that therefore, the only way to fight back was to learn how to set aside philosophical differences and work together to counter with an equally strong and effective defense. The logic of that is very compelling. The ethics, however, are something else entirely.

That was very troubling to me at the time, and continues to trouble me to this day. Which has gotten me into a lot of trouble with certain breeders I’ve known.

But so be it. Gina articulates very well the very ideas I formed ALL ON MY OWN many, many years ago. Ideas that came from my own notions about what should and should not be “okay” in the breeding of animals meant to be companions in our homes and not ideas that came from the AR movement in any way, shape or form.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 1, 2009 @ 7:38 am
It does my heart good to see so many free-thinkers on this topic. Maybe there are enough people left who haven’t been fished in by either extreme that this will all eventually be sorted out. It won’t be easy, to be sure — there are no easy answers to any of this — but at least I have faith that there are rational people left who care about these issues.

Somebody said something on here a few days ago that really struck me as being one of the things few people seem to consider.

I forgot where it was, so I’m not sure who wrote it and can’t quote it directly (sorry), but it was along the lines that the ARAs/PETA may want to take away our right to own animals, but that doesn’t mean we have to give it to them.

I think that point is missed by the “sky is falling” types, who are quick to accuse anyone who isn’t 100% in step with their ideas of having bought into the AR propaganda.

I got to thinking last night that if things ever really were to reach a point in this country that those who want to take away the right to pet ownership were able to succeed with that goal, whether we owned pets or not would probably be the least of our problems.

Comment by stellaluna — February 1, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
I was really angered by the timing of one of the strongest efforts by the ARs to get their legislation through. The infamous “Puppy Protection Act”, which they tried to have attached to the 2002 Farm Bill - right on the heels of September 11 and in the midst of all the anthrax scares. There was a LOT of fear going on in this country, and when I expressed concern about legislation having to do with - {gasp!} - *DOGS*! (“Where ARE your priorities, woman?!”) - you can BET I had a hard time being taken seriously by anyone.

I’m still angry to this day that they tried to slip this through under cover of the national hysteria going on. But that just proves once again the sneaky strategies which they’re willing to employ in pursuit of their goals.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 1, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
I think that’s just basic politics — the nature of the beast, so to speak. A lot of interests took advantage of 9-11, unfortunately.
Timing is everything when it comes to politics, as it is in most things.

Comment by stellaluna — February 1, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
I had never heard of National Animal Interest Alliance before this post. So I not only asked several of my responsible breeder friends, I also searched it out on Teh Google. The breeders I spoke with who were aware of it are of the opinion NAIA is an organization primarily of and for commercial breeders/high volume breeders/show millers/millers whatever you wish to call them and I do not support commercial breeding under any PC name.

That’s not correct. The NAIA’s membership is mostly AKC show dog fanciers. Based on who attended their national conference last year, I’d guess that’s 80% or more of their membership. NAIA’s founder and National Director is an AKC show dog fancier. Also among their members are cat fanciers, pet owners, working dog handlers/trainers like myself, research scientists, ranchers, veterinarians, hunters, etc. These are the people whose membership dues provide nearly all of NAIA’s funding.

The NAIA spends most of its time and money fighting mandatory spay/neuter laws and other draconian restrictions that target ordinary pet owners and hobby breeders. For example, their 501(c)4 affiliate hired a professional lobbyist in the California state capital, who spent months working hard to help kill AB 1634.

NAIA also does things like make animal shelter statistics accessible. They developed a model pet-friendly animal control ordinance that has been adopted in some jurisdictions, and is extremely similar to Calgary’s fantastic program. They publish “white papers” on various subjects; my paper on spay/neuter health effects is on their website.

NAIA is involved in fighting AR-supported efforts in other areas as well, but that’s not “primarily” what it does.

As far as I know, the legislation that NAIA opposed that got them accused by some fanciers of being in bed with commercial dog breeders was PAWS and the Puppy Protection Act. These bills were also strongly opposed by tens of thousands of hobby breeders and breed fanciers, which is why both of them never passed.

Absolutely, yes, there are extremists within the anti-AR movement. Extremists who do have a “yer either with us or agin’ us” attitude, who explicitly advocate an automatic opposition to anything HSUS supports, who assert that any politician that gets endorsed by HSUS must be itching to enact the AR agenda (that nonsense got really old during election season), who believe that we should not propose or support any new legislation dealing with animal control issues, who are nearly as fast and loose with the facts as the ARs, and/or who leap to the conclusion that any breeder who gets their dogs seized or is charged with animal cruelty must be the target of overzealous PETA-loving animal control officers (and those of us, like myself, who assert otherwise with a real example we are familiar with get trashed by the extremists).

Yes, there are extremists in the anti-AR movement. NAIA is not one of the extremists folks, not even remotely close. The extremists attack NAIA.

You may disagree with some of NAIA’s positions, but holding positions that you disagree with doesn’t make them extremists. Anyone who makes that claim really doesn’t know the lay of the land in the anti-AR movement, and doesn’t know how NAIA works.

Comment by LauraS — February 2, 2009 @ 1:16 am
Laura,
I never said anything myself about extremism and NAIA. All I did was mention 2 sites that cropped up repeatedly in my search, one an organization supported by lobbyists to produce spin to influence the gullible. My other source of information was from friends whose opinions I trust on issues that involve responsible breeding practices.
While I can appreciate your impassioned defense of your organization, a more effective method might have been to link unbiased articles about NAIA and let me and others draw an informed opinion for ourselves. What I did find on my own through word of mouth and the Internet has convinced me that NAIA is not in my breed’s best interests. If I were a show miller, I am sure I’d be all in favor of NAIA.

Comment by Anne T — February 2, 2009 @ 5:31 am
My opinion of NAIA’s major interests and concerns was formed primarily by reading through NAIA’s website in some detail. The concerns expressed there are not those of the average responsible pet owner or responsible hobby breeder.

Like Anne, I’m pretty sure that the “AKC show dog fanciers” that you say make up the bulk of your membership are show millers—high-volume commercial breeders who do show some subset of their dogs, whether as a hobby or to make themselves look more respectable to those seeking a puppy.

Comment by Lis — February 2, 2009 @ 5:47 am
Laura, I appreciate your passion, and I know you want to protect our heritage and working breeds.

But I will never accept that to do so, we have to doom generations of dogs to lives as production units in high-volume breeding operations, no matter how “clean” the millers are.

As I said upstream we will have to disagree on this. As Christie said, the only options are not “outlaw” or “reform.”

You’ve made your points, repeatedly, and I’ve disagree with them, repeatedly. I’m not moving, and neither are you.

This “discussion” is over.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 2, 2009 @ 9:30 am
I am angry anyway at Petland. A relative of mine bought a very expensive (yes VERY expensive) French Bulldog at a Petland. They told them he was registered. NOT. He was registered, but not with the AKC but with some petfinders. By the time they found out, they were too devoted to him to return him. What a bunch of scammers. You pay up in the thousands you would think they could register them with the AKC. Please…they need to be hung out to dry….

Comment by Linda Esk — March 18, 2009 @ 7:38 am
His papers were probably the least of what they should have been mad at Petland for.

Comment by Original Lori — March 18, 2009 @ 8:19 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Facebook	Twitter	Google Buzz	Digg
Technorati	StumbleUpon	Delicious	Email

pet connection

Do you like this story?