Why fight busts are no longer enough
By Gina Spadafori
July 10, 2009
Those who have spent their professional lives helping to shut down dog fighting operations were no doubt surprised when the acclaim they were used to getting following a fight bust suddenly turned to criticism.
You could almost hear the confusion: “We’re not the bad guys! Why are they yelling at us?”
The answer, of course: The dogs.
Before the Michael Vick fight bust, the dogs seized in any such case were seen more as damaged goods than as victims. The thinking was that they too dangerous to take a chance on, and should be slaughtered wholesale, puppies included.
The Vick case changed everything, even as organizations including the HSUS and PETA raised money “for the dogs” and continued to push the long-established view that that only kind outcome for a fight bust dog could be found at the end of a syringe full of Fatal Plus.
It didn’t seem right to many, and indeed, it wasn’t. Animal advocacy groups such as BAD RAP and Best Friends raised holy hell, and a new precedent was established for fight bust dogs: They should be considered as individuals, as victims worthy of rehabilitation efforts.
Could all fight bust dogs be saved? No one was saying that. Some are too unstable, too broken, too dangerous to be spared the needle. But others — even some proven fighters — are just fine, or can rehabbed into good pets.
The Vick dogs have proven this is possible. Every dog deserves an individual evaluation, even if pulled from the end of a logging chain at a dog-fighting operation. Every dog deserves a chance.
With the multi-agency fight bust this week that pulled 450 dogs out of the hands of dog-fighters in several states, the new precedent set by the Vick dogs hangs in the air like a big question mark.
The HSUS has followed its tradition, focusing more on the bust and the future of dog-fighting in its communications than on the future of the individual dogs. While the fact that the dogs have been pulled from their miserable lives was stressed, their future is left vague in the organization’s outreach. In his blog, HSUS top dog Wayne Pacelle quotes Scotlund Haisley, the group’s director of emergency services:
After months of coordination and preparation, the sweet release of relief is finally beginning to wash over our exhausted team. This feeling is ushered in by the comforting sight of dogs being settled in at the emergency shelter. Knowing that without our intervention these same animals would have faced a future of untold horrors is my ultimate reward. Tonight I can truly celebrate a belated Independence Day, as I contemplate the 450 lives that have been saved from the clutches of the dogfighting industry.
By shutting down these operations we have saved untold generations of fighting dogs the pain and misery of being bred only to quench the blood lust of those involved in this hideous industry.
Saved, but what next? While the Humane Society of Missouri, which is holding most of the dogs, suggests individual evaluations may be possible, Pacelle’s post doesn’t address the issue. And Best Friends wants the answer:
“Dogs seized from fighting busts are victims not villains. They should be evaluated like any other dog seized in a cruelty case,” said Ledy VanKavage, senior legislative analyst for Best Friends. VanKavage is a nationally recognized expert on all issues connected with pit bulls and other pit bull-type dogs.
[...]
“This bust shows how many dogs are victims of this blood sport in various parts of the country,” adds VanKavage. “And it underscores the need for uniform state laws to humanely treat the victims.”
Laws in 13 states (Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin) either label the victims of dog fighting as dangerous dogs and/or require their euthanasia. Two other states automatically declare all dogs seized from fighting situations as vicious, which also requires euthanasia.
What will happen to the dogs? Only time will tell. But the organizations and agencies that work to shut down dog fighting are surely on notice that the job isn’t done until the dogs themselves are given a chance. That this view isn’t just part of the pit bull advocacy community is clear when it turns up in the mainstream media, in this case in the Christian Science Monitor:
[A]s raids on shadowy dogfighting rings step up, the HSUS and animal adoption groups face a dilemma: Can they find homes for all the rescued dogs?
Some pit bulls may become “casualties in the war between a society that says animal fighting is wrong and the issue of there not being enough homes for the animals being bred,” says Robert DeFranco, a companion animal behaviorist and president of the American College of Applied Science in Crescent City, Fla.
[...]
The successful adoption of Mr. Vick’s dogs showed that even dogs bred to fight can find good homes. … Media publicity and work by shelter organizations means all the rescued dogs from Wednesday’s raids are likely to find a home, Mr. DeFranco says, adding that his school is willing to take two of the harder cases, if needed. “From Mississippi to New York, if everybody can get together, I think every one of those animals can find a home.”
That remains to be seen, of course, but even the fact that the post-bust slaughter of all dogs seized in fight busts is not longer acceptable is a sign of welcome change.
Yes, this really is the time for HSUS to put its money where its mouth is and show us that it’s not just the publicity and self-promotion they’re after.
Meanwhile, the HS of Missouri (not affiliated with HSUS) is the organization managing the actual, you know, dogs/victims. My sources speak highly of their staff’s experience with fightdogs and commitment to saving as many as possible. http://member.hsmo.org/site/Pa.....ase_7_8_09
Comment by EmilyS — July 10, 2009 @ 7:51 am
OTOH:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltod.....enDocument
Wayne won’t be able to live with himself unless he gets his pound of dogflesh
Comment by EmilyS — July 10, 2009 @ 8:07 am
Yup. If HSUS wants to convince any of us that they’ve seen the light on rehabbing fight dogs they need to do a whole hell of a lot more than show up for the photo shoot when the dogs are seized and then pump it for all the money-generating PR its worth.
With their coffers full of gold HSUS could fund health and temperament testing programs, pay for transport and temporary care and accomplish a lot of other things for these dogs that would really help them.
Cynic that I am, I expect to see more of the same: show up for a high profile bust and seizure, post for photos, send photos and sound bytes out to PR machine to generate donations and then spend a few million more to lobby and pay salaries.
‘Cause you know - it’s all about the animals.
Comment by Janeen — July 10, 2009 @ 8:08 am
Interesting spin from the ASPCA’s media release:
“Dogs are being safely transported to a secure facility under the direction of the Humane Society of Missouri Animal Cruelty Task Force, where they will be cared for until final disposition is determined by the United States District Court.”
Hmmmmmm … do I catch a whiff of “we’re all for the dogs, but our hands are tied” ?
I really think we won’t see a change in how fight bust dogs are handled until all agencies and organizations involved have a comprehensive plan in place for the dogs before any boots are on the ground for the bust. Fight-bust dogs need to quit being “collateral damage” and need to be triaged like survivors from puppy-mill busts.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 10, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Fight-bust dogs need to quit being “collateral damage” and need to be triaged like survivors from puppy-mill busts.
Well said.
Comment by LauraS — July 10, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
I find Pacelle’s equivocation especially disturbing since in the photos at the article Emily S linked, people look to be handling the dogs with no trouble at all — there’s not even any sign of protective equipment. Now, this could be due to editorial selection, but at the very least it suggests that some of the dogs *are* likely to be candidates for rehabilitation.
Comment by Eucritta — July 10, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Hey, all, please Digg this story!
http://digg.com/pets_animals/W.....ger_enough
Comment by Christie Keith — July 10, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
I think the attitude that you ‘save’ the fighting dogs by killing them boils down to the belief that many people still have that killing (‘euthanizing’) a needy animal is still the ultimate form of kindness. PETA believes that wholeheartedly, and a lot of the AW world has been polluted by AR values, even unknowingly.
Until ‘euthanize’ stops being used to describe the killing of healthy, treatable animals, you’re still going to get that mix-up in people’s minds. It’s not a ‘good death’ unless an animal is untreatably suffering or mentally unstable and incapable of a normal life. Killing them for ‘space’ or ‘convenience’ when there are other, viable options is just KILLING.
Comment by Pai — July 10, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
In response to my question, Krista Maloney of the ASPCA e-mails:
“Over the next several weeks all of the dogs will undergo behavioral evaluations. Dr. Lockwood, the ASPCA’s Sr. VP of Anti-Cruelty Field Services, will be extensively involved with the evaluations in the coming weeks.”
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 10, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
great article - also I appreciate Pai’s comments regarding polluted AR values that tragically twist the idea that a dog may be saved by killing it - AR values seem to have developed with more strangeness - rather than focus on the rescued abused animals, they instead cry for the blood of the puppy mill perpetrator or the dog fighter (of course there must be punishment) And sadly some AW people I’ve met get so consumed with hatred that the animals become less of a priority.
Comment by mary francis — July 10, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Keep the pressure on them, guys. There are starting to be some cracks in the wall.
Change is hard for both organizations and people. It comes when the current situation becomes soooo uncomfortable that change starts to look good by comparison.
For HSUS, the change will be to think about the welfare of the dogs first rather than the publicity opportunities when a big bust like this happens.
Maybe the light bulb will come on when they figure out how much publicity they can get when they announce the six figure amount that they are going to spend to get all the dogs evaluated and placed with rescues. *sound of heads whipping around*
Comment by Susan Fox — July 10, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
If HSUS would put their money where their mouth is and pay for the evaluation and housing of these animals, I’d be back on their donor list in a heartbeat.
Comment by Nichole — July 10, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
well, Lockwood of ASPCA isn’t any better than Pacelle:
“Many if not most of the animals will be euthanized. They have medical or behavioral issues that prevent them from being placed in homes,” said Lockwood of the ASPCA. “The greatest kindness that might be shown to them is a humane death.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2.....ontentBody
They’ll save a token few and then blame the pit bull community for failing to “step up to the plate” with foster homes for all the dogs. And there will be people within the community who will take the same line. That’s been the pattern.
Comment by EmilyS — July 10, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
There are so many dogs, no-one famous is involved … it seems to me, it’ll be all too easy to disappear most of them into the killing rooms. Which just makes me want to throw things, preferably at a few heads.
Comment by Eucritta — July 10, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
The greatest kindness that could be shown to them is to be treated as dogs, as survivors of abuse, not as monsters.
Comment by katie — July 10, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
this all begs the question: why haven’t HSUS/ASPCA set up a huge holding facility for these dogs already.. or for any future ones. I approve of busting dogfighters, but these organizations KNOW there will be dogs seized. Take some of those big bucks they get from people who donate to combat this cruelty and use it for, you know, the DOGS.
Comment by EmilyS — July 10, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
Emily S, that’s a brainwave. Why DON’T they? I hadn’t thought about it, but … from these articles, it seems to me that the work and cost of the dogs falls on the counties?
Comment by Eucritta — July 10, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
I find it strange that an organization (HSUS) that is so gung-ho about busting puppy mills has never built a facility or rescue infrastructure for the dogs that result from their crusade. They have SO MUCH MONEY, why can’t they actually HELP local shelters place or treat these dogs, instead of just busting the place, getting the headlines, then just walking away from the animals and leaving them in a community that may not have the ability to properly care for them?
The term ‘collateral damage’ never sounded more apt. That’s what the HSUS treats these dogs as — once the publicity is achieved by their story, they’re just left behind to be killed or not, depending on how equipped their local shelter is for dealing with them. It’s like the HSUS feels it’s not their responsibility anymore to do anything for them.
Comment by Pai — July 10, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
IS that what they do? That’s what I want to know — do the HSUS and ASPCA provide funds to help house and care for the dogs taken in raids they participate in, or does it fall entirely on local shelters? And why aren’t there regional facilities to temporarily house the animals? As Emily S said, they’ve got to know there’ll be the need.
Comment by Eucritta — July 10, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
All these comments have been stewing all afternoon, and suddenly I can’t believe that since the sea change the Vick dogs represented, that these animal advocacy organizations would even THINK of planning a bust without planning for the housing, thorough individual testing, rehab and potential re-homing of bust dogs.
The law enforcement and regulatory groups get a pass — after all, we don’t expect our police departments to be victim advocates or prosecutors. (Cue the start to “Law and Order: ““‘In the criminal justice system the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important groups. The police who investigate crime, and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.”)
But an animal advocacy group has no business being involved and patting itself on the back unless it is also willing to step up for the victims: the dogs.
The HSUS, the ASPCA et al can no longer use the excuse that they didn’t realize the world has changed, and that it has been PROVEN that fight bust dogs aren’t all too vicious to be rehabbed and rehomed. Geez, Vick is already out of jail, ferpetesake. It’s not as if the groups haven’t had time to digest the new reality.
The mass killing of the dogs at the hands of humane groups is no longer an acceptable outcome of a fight bust. Thanks to Best Friends and BAD RAP, we now know the truth — these dogs are NOT without hope, and they deserve to be treated as such by those who claim to be “saving” them.
And thanks, Pai, for making the connection between shelter groups who can’t see a way out of killing for population control (and calling it “euthanasia) and animal advocacy groups who can’t see a way out of killing fight bust dogs (and calling it “euthanasia”). It IS the same underlying philosophy.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 10, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
They could endow Best Friends to do it. They have the facility and the experience.
Comment by Christie Keith — July 10, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Thinking about this over dinner … is it possible that one reason both HSUS and ASPCA have insisted that most of the dogs aren’t rehabilitatable, that no-one bothered to budget for their survival? So all that’s really funded is so-called euthenasia?
Comment by Eucritta — July 10, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
Gina, you are dead on. How indeed could they neglect to plan for the actual victims? Well, IMO: the reason they didn’t is that they never really cared about the dogs, they really believe the dogs shouldn’t be saved, because they’re “dangerous”, and they’re only pit bulls after all, those horrible fighting dogs owned by the lowclass poor (we’ll just forget that these dogs’ ancestors were the parents of OurGang Petey and all the family pit bulls that made the dog one of the most loved in the US). It’s perverse.. they bust scum for cruelty and then they commit the ultimate cruelty to the dogs, and have the nerve to claim they are helping the dogs, saving them from a “fate worse than death”.
I hate to say “thank god for Michael Vick”.. but it’s because of the publicity surrounding him and the lucky set of circumstances (and some brave determined people) that saved the dogs and of course the testimony of the dogs themselves, that these so called “humane” groups are being forced to change, or at least TALK about change.
This is another test for ASPCA and HSUS. NOT a test for BadRap, OurPack or any small mostly volunteer group like the ones that saved the Vick dogs. The big boys created this situation; let’s see them solve it. The public will step up to support as they did with the Vick dogs.. but the big cash has to come from the exploiters.
Comment by EmilyS — July 10, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
p.s. Eucritta: in past busts, the cost of housing the dogs has indeed fallen on local jurisdictions. Which is used as a reason they have to kill the dogs, lacking the resources to house/adopt them properly. Or the dogs are villains because they have to be held as evidence and take up space for more deserving dogs that could be adopted out.
Comment by EmilyS — July 10, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
Seems to me that if no-one is budgeting for the dogs, then of course everyone’s always going to lack the resources to save them — it’s a classic vicious circle. And it’s deeply unfair to expect private rescue networks to take up all the slack on an emergency basis.
A lot of people are seriously dropping the ball here, and from the sounds of it, scrabbling around in the pan to bury it like cat turds.
Comment by Eucritta — July 10, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
Love the comments on this thread. When Maine had a huge puppy mill bust 270 plus another 100 pups born to the state, they used a pre determined emergency shelter. Basically it was a doggie day day care that was converted to kennels. Yes, the state took a huge hit paying for it all. The dogs were housed for months while the scum tried to fight it but then wouldn’t show up for their court dates, Anyway, why coudn’t the HSUS pay that bill. We are talking about the biggest bust in history. There are plenty of empty warehouse in this ecomony that are vacant. Actually would bring jobs for a lot of people. Plus donations would poor in. Makes my head hurt.
Comment by Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT — July 11, 2009 @ 4:35 am
Perhaps it’s time to say no more busts until the agencies behind them set up the facilities to care and pay for the dogs. The care of the dogs should not be borne by the shelters in the areas in which the busts take place. I’m sure they’re not the agencies behind the busts and they should not be expected to foot the bill to take care of the dogs. If HSUS and ASPCA want to bust dog fighting rings they should prove beforehand that they have the facilities and financing to take care of the dogs, including the full cost of rehabilitation. No plan, no bust!
Comment by Liz — July 11, 2009 @ 7:06 am
For that matter, why do they actually have to confiscate the dogs? There is a concurrent case where the accused is allowed to keep his dogs at home. When there’s not obvious neglect/abuse (other than the possible dogfighting itself).. and at least some of the photos from this raid show dogs that are not neglected, even if their living situation is not ideal… why not let the accused keep the dogs and care for them? They are just ACCUSED after all, not guilty…. in many of these cases, the guys have been found innocent, but the dogs had already been destroyed (or they couldn’t afford the high price charged for the dog’s temporary care, so gave them up)
Comment by EmilyS — July 11, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
I am having trouble getting past the fact that an estimated 4 million dogs are killed in animal shelters throughout the nation every year, many of them having been owned by people who were simply unwilling to pay an impoundment fee when the dog was picked up by local animal control or were willingly surrendered by their owners. But these dogs did not make headlines so they quietly die for lack of homes. Bottom line is that there simply are more homeless dogs than there are homes. I am flabbergasted at the suggestion that law enforcement agencies should not try to stop dogfighting by busting dogfighters because the HSUS cannot guarantee homes for all the dogs.
Comment by Rose — July 13, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
Rose: 4 million DOGS are not killed in shelters in a year. That number reflects dogs and cats, and cats are more than half that number.
Furthermore, you say that “Bottom line is that there are simply more homeless dogs than there are homes.” That is flatly incorrect. Around 17 million people will get a dog or cat this year. We only need around 3 and a half million of them to get that pet from a shelter. That’s it — approximately 500,000 of those dogs and cats are “true euthanasia” cases (animals who a loving owner would also put to sleep, for humane reasons or because the animal was truly dangerous).
I’ve been working on the Ad Council’s Shelter Pet Project, a three-year public service campaign, the first animal welfare cause Ad Council has taken on in its 60+ year history. Those numbers were developed as part of the research done for the campaign, which aims to give the image of shelter pets a makeover and grab that small remaining piece of the pet acquisition pie, and make this a true no kill nation.
There ARE enough homes for all the dogs in all the shelters in America, and HSUS itself knows that. That’s why they’re sponsoring this campaign along with Maddie’s Fund.
Times have changed, the animal welfare movement has changed, and it’s time for animal lovers like you to change your way of looking at this issue, too. Yes, we can adopt our way out of “pet overpopulation,” because we do not have “pet overpopulation” in the sense of “too many pets, not enough homes.”
We just have a distribution and marketing problem. There ARE enough homes for America’s shelter pets. We just need to allay people’s fears that shelter pets are damaged goods, and we need to make the changes necessary to get those pets into those available homes.
Or to borrow someone else’s slogan: Yes, we can.
Comment by Christie Keith — July 13, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
While the future of the dogs is uncertain until they are evaluated, what is certain is that because dog fighting is a felony in all 50 states, the people responsible for these crimes will face tough consequences, and the dogs are no longer undergoing daily torture. Each dog will be assessed by behavioral experts in hopes of placing as many as possible in adoptive homes.
Comment by Sarah — July 14, 2009 @ 10:31 am
Christie,
You write, “We just have a distribution and marketing problem. There ARE enough homes for America’s shelter pets. We just need to allay people’s fears that shelter pets are damaged goods, and we need to make the changes necessary to get those pets into those available homes.”
The distribution issue. Has there been any talk about using the railroads or the trucking industry to help? I would volunteer to ride with a bunch of animals across several states and back on a weekend. Like a hobo. I love trains!
If those trucks and trains are going to be empty anyway for some of their journey, would it hurt to put 10 dog crates in one with a human chaperone? The freight companies could even write it off somehow as a charitable donation.
Or is this insane?
Comment by Mary Mary — July 14, 2009 @ 11:17 am
If the assessment is with an eye to placing the dogs in ‘adoptive homes,’ does this mean that only those who are already bombproof will be saved? Or will any kind of effort be made to save and rehabilitate the rest?
Thing is … I’m sorry, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s no longer enough that the dogs are ‘no longer undergoing daily torture’ … if we go on to just kill most of them, with no or next to no effort at rehabilitation, we’re also throwing them away … just as the folks running the fights would’ve done, but with an ethical veneer.
Comment by Eucritta — July 14, 2009 @ 11:22 am
With regards to “the distribution issue”, this once again comes back to the willingness of shelter managers (or those in positions of oversight) to consider taking advantage of the alternatives available to them. As an example of what happens when such individuals take the polar opposite view, read here:
http://cbs11tv.com/pets/Ferris.....77745.html
And I KNOW there are other jurisdictions that hand down edicts exactly like the one being handed down in Ferris county.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 14, 2009 @ 11:44 am
The HSUS policy is to recommend that all dogs are evaluated to determine whether they are suitable candidates for placement with rescue groups or permanent adoption. While of course it would be ideal if they could immediately be placed in homes, we understand that many will need to be rehabilitated to get to that point, which is what the behavioral experts evaluating the dogs will determine.
Comment by Sarah — July 14, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
Sarah, it would be helpful in the context of this discussion if you ID’ed yourself as a staff person FOR the HSUS, and your role with regard to this situation.
Can you please enlighten us?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 14, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
The OTHER Pat,
I wonder just how common edicts, and attitudes, like that are.
I have heard Nathan Winograd speak and I tried, tried, to read his book. I need to go back and try again. So maybe he addresses this and I need to go read what he says. But is the failure of shelter managers to take advantage of all alternatives really about laziness or bloodlust? Or can it be that some of these facilities and their leaders are pushed to their limits and beyond?
I work with many of them and unlike the ones Nathan showed during his presentation, I don’t see any empty cages around here. I don’t hear about stray dogs killed five minutes after they arrive. There is an elderly dog with horrific dental problems (in treatment) at our local open door shelter. It made me so glad to see him when I was touring a visitor through the building last week. He was surrounded by about 8 million pit bulls/mixes and bigblackdogs. Looks to me like this facility is trying.
And these days, I see cats and kittens in every available cranny and hallway and office, and I get constant requests for fostering cats/kittens and see special promotions for adoptions and all the rest. There are multiple options locally for low-cost spay/neuter and we finally have a mobile unit (yay!) for this, so I’m hoping that will impact things over the next few years. And still the cats and kittens keep coming and coming and coming.
I am really, really glad I don’t manage a shelter.
Comment by Mary Mary — July 14, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
Sarah, since you are presumably speaking for your employer …
Who is paying for the care of these animals, right now? That is the whole bill — food, housing, veterinary care, staff?
What behavioral interventions are being provided for the animals, right now and for the duration of their legal impoundment as evidence?
What environmental enrichment and socialization is being and will continue to be provided?
What are the names, affiliations, and qualifications of the “behavioral experts?”
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 14, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
Thanks Gina, yes I work for the HSUS as emerging media manager in their online communications department.
Comment by Sarah — July 14, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
Sarah: “dogs are no longer undergoing daily torture.” Unless you have reviewed the status reports for each of these 400 or so dogs, you have NO idea of what the dogs went through every day. In fact, many of the photos show apparently well kept and easy-to-handle (probably friendly) dogs, though their living conditions were not what we choose for our own dog
We know what HSUS “says”.. but the reality is that HSUS’ notion of “saving ” bust dogs is to put them in a situation where they MUST be killed (because “there aren’t enough homes”) and the reality is that Wayne himself has said that most of the dogs will need to be killed. Humanely, of course.
HSUS/ASPCA took these dogs, with no plan for their proper longterm housing… except evidently to dump them on overstretched pit bull rescuers, at some unnamed time in the future. And meanwhile?
I’d like to hear your answers to the questions HHoulan asks. Go ask Wayne and get back to us, “kay?
Gina: you want to know why some of us “hate” HSUS? (though I dispute that characterization of my attitude). Among other things, it’s because of the duplicity of people like this “emerging media manager” Sarah, coming on anonymously to boards to parrot a line of propaganda, and expecting us to believe it, in contrast to what we can actually see with, you know, our own eyes
But then, HSUS IS duplicity at its core.
Comment by EmilyS — July 14, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
She’s just doing her job - emerging to try and manage some media!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 14, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
The Other Pat: it doesn’t seem that she was going to emerge until Gina asked her. ;-) .
“UPDATE-Tuesday, July 14, 2009-The Humane Society of Missouri seeks Pit Bull/Power Breed Rescue Groups to work with us to secure appropriate placements for as many of the rescued dogs as possible. Groups must have or obtain an ACFA license from the Missouri Department of Agriculture or partner with a Missouri rescue group. Contact 314-802-5712 if your group is interested.”
No indication that HSUS/ASPCA are helping out at all…
Comment by EmilyS — July 14, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
I’m not on the ground and don’t know for sure, but the things I’m hearing about the Humane Society of Missouri are all good. For the moment, I’m going to believe they’re going to try to do justice by these dogs. I donated to them, and I hope others will consider doing that, too.
Comment by Christie Keith — July 14, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Mary Mary, does the shelter you mention have an aggressive volunteer and foster recruitment plan or policy?
Because the bigblackdogs, pits, cats and kittens and any other dog in a cramped environ will not “show” well to the public, and stress is bound to worsen health and behavioral problems, or cause them.
I too am glad that the old boy was there. But NO ONE will adopt him with a smelly, dirty mouth. He’ll need his teeth cleaned, a good grooming, and care to look perky and attractive. Probably some NSAIDS too.
Old creaky senior dogs are my breed rescue specialty and preference.
I adore them. Tell me you have a two year old obnoxious untrained dog and I sigh in resignation. Call me with a 10 year old (old for most bulldogs), half blind, half deaf, greasy smelly sweet old senior and I’ll be washing the good sheets, prepping a suite, and on my way.
But the chance of adoption in crowed public shelter is piss-poor. Through foster care, we get 80%plus rehomed, the rest live out their days in hospice with myself or another volunteer.
Same with pitties and large black dogs. Out on a walk in a cute collar, calmed down with plenty attention, they suddenly attract the attention of those who cannot seem to see them in a shelter.
And the stress induced behavioral issues of cats are well documented. Like high energy dogs, they go from adoptable to not very quickly.
You probably know all this, but most of the general public has no idea how different pets can look or act outside of the noisy, high octane shelter enviroment.
Trusting new volunteers can be difficult, but I think it’s important that anyone who is capable be given at least a chance to help out. Yes, sh*t will happen once in a while. A friend who fosters cats for a local rescue when they are deteriorating at the shelter had one escape and she was killed by a car. He is devastated, but he has helped save a dozen high risk cats in the last 18 months. He he has decided will foster again, the staff understands that accidents do occur.
I know Christie has written on this, but many shelters screw themselves out of GREAT, HIGHLY EX{PERIENCED foster homes by deciding that if anyone has an intact pet, for any reason, cannot foster. Trust me, my intact male champion toy fox, agile as he is, cannot impregnate a feral kitten or a spayed shepherd mix, no matter what. Plus 22 years NO “accidents”. Getting both sides, those with intact dogs in responsible, ethical breeding programs and the shelter community, to relax and work together would open up A LOT of assistance for homeless or displaced pets.
Comment by JenniferJ — July 14, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
Jennifer,
I don’t know what “aggressive” means as far as foster programming, but I know I constantly get emails asking for foster help. I am not sure how many hundreds (thousands?) of people are on that email list. The shelter does a pretty good job of getting media coverage too.
Every time I’m at the shelter the dogs are being walked and often trained in the training rooms. There seem to be a huge number of dog volunteers.
The shelter does a lot of offsite adoption events, taking animals to malls and other venues where they show better. They also shelter some in big box pet stores like Petco and Petsmart.
I went to the volunteer appreciation dinner and there were about 200 or maybe more attendees. I am not sure what the total number is.
As for the elderly dog with the bad teeth, he is being treated. I know what problems he had on admission because one of their vet techs told me. The dog had a lot of care provided before they put him out on the adoption floor.
I don’t know their policies about volunteers having intact animals. I don’t see why it would matter, as all the shelter animals are spayed and neutered, except the very young ones.
Comment by Mary Mary — July 14, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
I don’t know their policies about volunteers having intact animals. I don’t see why it would matter, as all the shelter animals are spayed and neutered, except the very young ones.
Comment by Mary Mary
********
Mary Mary —
If I recall, you’ll be describing one of the Pittsburgh shelters, probably one of the three largest ones.
I used to foster for one of them — dogs that weren’t responding to the rainbows ‘n’ unicorns “official” methods and were quietly shuttled off to trainers such as me, who would, you know, actually tell them to cut that shit out and behave, and then show them how. I frankly got tired of being used in this manner by people who would never dream of referring an adopter to me for training ‘cuz they imagined I was “mean.” And I got awfully busy with fostering and consults for NESR, whose personnel actually understand dogs and are not hypocrites.
Also, fostered litters during kitten season.
But I threw in the towel with the Pittsburgh shelters when it came to light that none of them would adopt a cat to me because I owned intact dogs.
Yep.
The intact bitch is going to miscegenate with the spayed cat. How’s that work again?
Of course the real answer is, “intact dog in the home” is code for “hillbilly trash, not our kind of people.” And therefore unfit to own a pet.
We’ve just seen a self-styled “rescuer” on another thread who is *certain* that testicles are a field mark of neglect. (And that a dog in good body condition is emaciated, and that a lost dog is by definition an abused dog, and that she gets to decide whether a dog owner is worthy or not.)
Why should it be surprising when such attitudes get spiffed up a little and written into shelter policies?
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 14, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
Mary Mary, I mean that dogs and cats should be sent off-site to live in homes and possibly even be shown to prospective adopters by the foster care giver, either at official offsite events or by meeting people interested in adoption at the shelter or other facilities or locations agreeable to the shelter and fosterer
The idea is to show case that dog or cat, away from the shelter, away from noise and stress.
A big black dog, pit or black cat looks utterly different on a leash in a park or a home or hanging out on some ones sofa than in a concrete and wire kennel setting. I love the fact that there are a lot of volunteers, I am talking about a network of people willing to take animals into their homes, for a few days or weeks and take an individual interest in helping get that pet in a home.
I am not knocking the shelter! But there are many people who will not adopt from a shelter because they do not like the noise, are overwhelmed by the number of animals, etc… The same goes for the dogs and cats who become stressed and anxious. The fact is, in most shelters, big brown and black dogs and pit bulls and black cats do not show well. Getting them into foster care means that there will be a person who will individually champion them, promote them and help them find a home. They go from yet-another- blackdoglabmixpitbullblackcatolddogwhowon’tlivelongenoughtobotherwith to become Russ or Tau or Bart or Otis who is a great dog or cat and you’d be lucky to have them.
Comment by JenniferJ — July 15, 2009 @ 12:01 am
BTW Bart (blown cruciate poor condition stray) and Otis (misdiagnosed skin, eye infection and heart worm) are two cool older gents on the mend, hangin’ out at Casa J, who will be ready for new homes in about 6-8 weeks. (hint hint ;D)
Comment by JenniferJ — July 15, 2009 @ 12:09 am
Regarding that they are no longer undergoing daily torture, the fact that they are not being pitted against one another to fight to the death with the losing dog being tossed and electrocuted in a pool, would at least to me, mean that they are no longer undergoing daily torture. As for HHoulihan’s questions, the HSMO is the lead organization in this investigation, and we came to help at their request. Because this is a federal investigation, we cannot answer questions like HHoulihan’s, as certain details can’t be released. We currently still have staff and volunteers that are on the ground in Missouri helping care daily for these dogs. To your comment about Wayne, what he said was certainly not a hope but instead a guess as to outcome. Time will tell if a majority will pass a behavioral evaluation, and that’s certainly our hope, including Wayne’s. HSUS policy is to recommend that all dogs are evaluated to determine whether they are suitable candidates for placement with rescue groups or permanent adoption.
Comment by Sarah@HSUS — July 15, 2009 @ 9:39 am
I guess the problem I’m having here is that it’s a cop-out (in my opinion) to say, “We came in at the request of … blah blah blah … and we can’t … blahblahblah … ” and not recognize that the efforts of the past are no longer enough where a national animal advocacy group is involved.
The HSUS/ASPCA dog-fighting response teams should include — AS PART OF THE PACKAGE — not only dog-fighting experts, investigators and a forensics team but ALSO a mobile shelter (as with disaster response) and a team that is expert in handling, evaluating and working to get as many of these dogs as possible into new homes.
Wishing will not make it so, which is why the “hoping that the dogs will be OK” of HSUS/ASPCA is no longer enough. An allocation of money and service is what’s needed. The HSUS is not a local shelter: This is a powerful and influential national organization with no sheltering facilities but with the money to invest in a full fight-bust response team that includes looking out for the dogs during their transition from victims to pets, for those who can indeed make that transition successfully.
I would think any local agency would welcome the expert help, just as they do with the investigation and bust, and as they do in times of natural disaster.
As I wrote in the original post: Fight busts are no longer enough.
Thanks to the Vick dogs, we can no longer ASSUME that the best we can do for these dogs is kill them. I expect better from the HSUS, and better includes putting resources where their mouth is.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 15, 2009 @ 10:02 am
Sarah, you’re assuming guilt on the part of the humans involved. In the past, dogs have been seized and killed, and then the humans were acquitted.
But if we assume guilt—getting them out of there is good, but not enough. And because the HSUS as so strongly advocated for killing all dogs seized in dogfighting busts, including puppies born in foster care after the seizure, on the grounds that they were all irredeemably vicious solely because of their breed, and because HSUS raised money on the backs of the Vick dogs, while advocating for their deaths as irredeemably vicious, and opposed the outcome that led to only one dog being euthanized for temperament problems while several others are now therapy dogs—sorry, we’ll all be thrilled if HSUS has really changed its stripes, but it’s up to HSUS to prove good faith now, not up to other people to be “reasonable” or to “understand.”
That you can’t answer a lot of these questions because of the court case may be and likely is true, but, you have to understand, it doesn’t actually get you off the hook.
And putting up the money to pay for the dogs’ care, evaluation, and rehabilitation would be a big help.
Comment by Lis — July 15, 2009 @ 10:04 am
Because this is a federal investigation, we cannot answer questions like HHoulihan’s, as certain details can’t be released.
I call Bullshit.
There is nothing about a “federal investigation” that makes it impossible to disclose how the dogs are being cared for, who is paying the bills, and who the “behavioral experts” are who are evaluating them.
Nothing.
Thank you for playing, try again.
In case you need a refresher —
**********
Who is paying for the care of these animals, right now? That is the whole bill — food, housing, veterinary care, staff?
What behavioral interventions are being provided for the animals, right now and for the duration of their legal impoundment as evidence?
What environmental enrichment and socialization is being and will continue to be provided?
What are the names, affiliations, and qualifications of the “behavioral experts?”
****************
If, as so many of us strongly suspect, the dogs are being warehoused in cages in some windowless building somewhere, not walked, not handled, not trained, with the shit pressure-sprayed out of the bare cage — then I further call bullshit on the rush to self-congratulation at having “saved” the dogs from “torture.”
How about we let the courts decide whether any individual dog was “tortured?”
Meanwhile, someone has legal and physical custody of a whole bunch of dogs due to a legal action. Those dogs are wards of the state. That makes the actual caretakers accountable to the public for how those animals are treated.
To be told “None of your damned business” by the representative of a private entity that none of us elected, that has no accountability to the polity for its actions, but seems to have an awful lot of influence on the current care and putative futures of these wards of the state certainly sends up some red flags.
If it’s just dandy to show photographs of the seizure because that’s “news,” then how do the lives of the dogs in custody become “confidential?”
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 15, 2009 @ 11:39 am
Here’s an example of a public agency that needs some help because of this “rescue” —
http://www.radioiowa.com/gesta.....FA1E115C86
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 15, 2009 @ 11:46 am
oh look who’s “emerged”…
Sarah what you’re posting is total B.S. You’re just a flack mouthpiece. You actually knows nothing about the conditions on the ground, or how the dogs were treated… or ARE being treated. You have no idea which, if indeed, ANY of the dogs were actually fought. And even if so, do you know anything about dogfighting? They don’t fight “daily”, and while some dogfighters are also sociopaths like Vick who beat and electrocute dogs, some dogfighters actually treat the dogs well (separately from the fighting of course which is an appallingly cruel act). But that’s impossible for your PETA-enfused brain to imagine. Why, I bet the dogs are intact too!
If you wanted us to believe you actually knew anything, or cared anything about the dogs, you might have mentioned the heavy chains and barrel-doghouses which you see in the photos. Those are conditions most would find appalling. But then, the photos also show well-fed dogs peacefully being carried away.
Your “effort” is pathetic, totally pathetic.
HSUS/ASPCA are the driving forces behind the crackdown on dogfighting and have been for years. They’ve funded their organizations in large part on that effort.. and on the backs of the dogs.
For some flack to claim HSUS is just some 3rd party is just, well, just a lie. I doubt HSMO would have been involved at all in this MULTI STATE effort if not for HSUS and ASPCA.
Comment by EmilyS — July 15, 2009 @ 11:52 am
Here is the HSOM page on the raid and the dogs that they have in custody:
http://member.hsmo.org/site/Pa.....ase_7_8_09
It appears that they are making some efforts to give the dogs things to chew, which is something, and they are trying to find rescue groups to take and rehome dogs. Presumably those groups are going to have to finance that.
No specifics on the behavioral experts or whether the dogs are being walked, trained, and worked with.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 15, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Maybe emerging Sarah could provide us a list of organizations in other states (like the one in OK in the link you posted) that have dogs from these busts and could also use help
Comment by EmilyS — July 15, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
Hi Gina – The HSUS transported some of our disaster response equipment, including a mobile shelter, to Missouri in preparation for the raids. This is in addition to other equipment we transported to them weeks in advance (to help them prepare). The HSUS supplied many of the kennels they are using to house the dogs, and we have personnel on the ground helping handle and care for the animals daily.
Emily - As for where the dogs are, the majority of them are at the HSMO. Here is a link to their website where you can donate: to support their care: http://member.hsmo.org/site/Pa.....ase_7_8_09. In addition to sending people to help care for the dogs, The HSUS is also contributing funds to help with the dogs’ care. The HSUS, ASPCA, BAD RAP, Best Friends Animal Society, Animal Farm Foundation, and other animal protection organizations recently formed a working group to address the disposition of dogs seized from dog-fighting operations. We’re hopeful this group will be instrumental in helping to arrive at an appropriate and ethical outcome for each and every victim.
Comment by Sarah@HSUS — July 15, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
EmilyS … you know your comments are always welcome here. But your tone is a little over the top in this thread. I would like you to treat other commenters with some respect and courtesy. That doesn’t stop you from making your points, but I would like you to do it as if you’re in the same room as that person. Strong is fine, rude is not.
Real people who care about animals and what they do are behind the names here. Please remember that.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 15, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
ok Gina, but I haven’t posted anything I wouldn’t say to her face.
Comment by EmilyS — July 15, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
and she didn’t exactly answer my question about the other locations, did she? I didn’t ask where the majority were.. I asked where the others were.
Comment by EmilyS — July 15, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
I have no problem with the questions. I have a problem with the tone. Discussion can be passionate here, heaven knows, but we always aim for civil. Thanks!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 15, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
H. Houlahan,
Your story about not being allowed to adopt a cat because you have an intact dog … I don’t know what to say.
I’m going to find out if these policies are currently in place, and WHY.
Makes no sense to me.
Comment by Mary Mary — July 16, 2009 @ 8:15 am
That is ridiculous that you can’t adopt a pet due to intact animals at home. In that case three of my current dogs (rescues, pug, am staff or pit and pit/lab mix) would not be residing here. They are all neutered males, BTW, which I had done at my vet at my expense.
2 out of the 3 came with major baggage (the pug being the worst) so I’m not sure what their fates would have been had I not taken them in.
I own intact dogs because I enjoy showing my dogs and unfortunately they can’t be spayed/neutered to compete in the show ring.
(no criticism needed, thanks, everyone has things they enjoy doing, this is what I enjoy in my “spare” time)
I pray that these pits are all given FAIR behavioral evaluations by NON-BIASED experts and get a chance at happiness in forever homes.
Euthanasia should only be used as a last resort and hopefully for very few of them.
Comment by Deb H. — July 16, 2009 @ 11:36 am
Deb H
You mean your maniacal sex crazed show dogs can’t magically breed your altered pets or rescues?
Yeah, mine either! XD
Comment by JenniferJ — July 16, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Comment by Deb H. — July 16, 2009 @ 11:36 am
I own intact dogs because I enjoy showing my dogs and unfortunately they can’t be spayed/neutered to compete in the show ring.
(no criticism needed, thanks, everyone has things they enjoy doing, this is what I enjoy in my “spare” time)
Just curious as to the kind of criticism you thought you might be subject to here?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 16, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Probably since McKenzie’s spay is featured prominently today, DebH assumed we are against intact dogs. Just dropped in, she’d have no idea that McKenzie had a single planned litter (after lots and lots of certified health screenings of both her and the sire) and is a champion with one pass to go on a field title. This spay has been planned as long as her litter was.
Spaying and neutering is a good option, and probably the RIGHT option for most pet-owners. But I believe it is a choice. Spaying and neutering doesn’t make you a responsible pet-owner, since it’s absolutely possible to have intact pets without having unplanned litters. Alas, this is fact my intact male dogs knows well, heavens though he wishes I were less vigilant with him.
And with McKenzie’s spay, he’ll be much more relaxed for a while …. until Faith grows up.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 16, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Gina if this is true,
“Spaying and neutering doesn’t make you a responsible pet-owner, since it’s absolutely possible to have intact pets without having unplanned litters.”
Then how is this also true?
“[It’s] probably the RIGHT option for most pet-owners.”
If it’s not such a big deal to manage intact animals living together, as so many people have written on this blog, then why go to the expense and risk of fixing any of them?
Deb H. — if you are new here, you will find that many of the regular posters are as vocally, often mockingly anti-spay/neutuer as much of the popular culture is anti-intact animals.
Most of this discussion comes up in the context of mandatory spay neuter (MSN) laws, which is a different subject. I am anti-MSN, but very, very pro-spay/neuter. If you have show animals or have concerns about medical outcomes of spay/neuter —- and MORE IMPORTANTLY you know what you’re doing? —- great. Keep all their parts. Nobody’s going to die over it if you know what you are doing.
But those are not the circles I travel in. I meet so many incredibly uneducated animal owners, I shudder to think of them housing multiple unaltered animals. Unplanned litters make me sad and angry. Yes, the shelters SHOULD get their act together and lower their kill rates, but for now that is not what we have to work with. At least not where I live. And worse, the animal surrender rate is increasing here this year … not sure about the kill rates. So burdening the system with more animals is not getting us to the no kill goal any faster.
So yeah, I encourage people — normal people, the ones I run into in real life, not animal-savvy show people and elite breeders — to spay/neuter. AND I help them to find low-cost options. AND I’ve even offered to pay at times! It may not make them more responsible pet owners, but I think it makes them more responsible citizens.
Comment by Mary Mary — July 16, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
It’s absolutely possible to have intact pets without having unplanned litters.
But …
It’s also a pain in the tush to manage an intact pet. Which is why I believe spay-neuter is the right choice for the majority of pet-owners, including the owner of McKenzie … ME!
I think it’s important to evaluate the options — individual pet health, behavioral issues, public health/unplanned litters and owner lifestyle/convenience — and then make a decision to spay or neuter.
Almost all of my pets have been neutered — dogs, cats and rabbits. (Parrot and chickens the exception, of course.) I’ve probably paid to neuter three times more pets than I have owned, and raised money (through the rescue I ran) to spay/neuter dozens more.
I believe for most people and pets it’s the best option, still.
Which is why McKenzie is now spayed.
Responsible owners don’t have unplanned litters, or plan litters from pets who haven’t been screened for congenital health defects and who don’t have exceptional temperaments.
Preventing litters can be done with spay/neuter, or it can be done with a leash. I’m realistic that most people are better off choosing the former.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 16, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
I would also dispute that the bloggers or commenters here are “mockingly” anti-spay-neuter. What we ARE anti (at least speaking for myself and, if I may, for Christie) is an unquestioned adherance to a dogma — ALL pets much be neutered — that isn’t medically optimal for ALL pets.
Frankly, I would be surprised if the bloggers and regular commenters weren’t like the majority of ALL pet-lovers, with most of our cats and dogs altered.
Faith and I are now going through a puppy class taught by a woman who is also a professional handler at dog shows. She sees unaltered dogs 50 weekends a year, but all week long in her classes she pushes for spay-neuter, as she did MOST EMPHATICALLY in the intro puppy class last week.
Don’t assume “elite” breeders aren’t interested in the larger issues. Most everyone I know who is a responsible breeder can’t wait to spay — as I did today — and usually to neuter as well. (Females are obviously more of a pain to manage than males are, unless you have behavior problems in the males.) And don’t forget that breeders also rescue, foster and re-home neutered animals, and place many of their puppies with spay-neuter agreements.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 16, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
To reiterate what Gina said, it’s important to distinguish between something that is difficult v.s. something that is simply a pain in the butt.
When something is a pain in the butt, then following through on it requires buy-in to the idea that it’s an important enough thing to do that the “pain in the butt” part is worthwhile. STILL doesn’t make it difficult. STILL simply makes it a pain in the butt.
For some people, the “pain in the butt” part is well worth it, and they’ll accept the not-difficult-but-sometimes-annoying jumping through hoops that can be life with intact animals.
Chances are, though, that for most average pet owners, the commitment to the the not-difficult-but-sometimes-annoying jumping through hoops thing just isn’t “high value” enough to pursue day in and day out. So for those people - MOST people - spay/neuter is probably the better choice.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 16, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
Gina,
Your comment … “Responsible owners don’t have unplanned litters …”
Now there is where I would argue with you.
You can be a great pet owner who day to day, year to year does “everything right.” On an ongoing basis, you provide consistently good care to the animal. Thus: responsible.
OOPS! One day grandma is watching the baby. Doggie has to pee. Grandma lets the (unspayed, in heat) dog out to pee in the fenced in yard.
OOPS! Dog is missing.
(This happened the other day in my very own neighborhood, except the dog was not in heat, although in this example I still think the anecdote fits. Dog travelled quite a distance! Grandma was so upset. Joyful reunion.)
Now maybe Grandma shouldn’t be taking care of an in heat dog. Not even for ONE HOUR. Or the petsitter. Or your brother while you’re in the hospital. Or etc. But every hour of life does not always go according to plan.
I think that being responsible is a state of ongoing behavior. Having one brief slipup — which is all it takes for a litter to be conceived — is something that I think even a “good” owner can have happen.
I know I take risks that other pet owners think are not OK. But my risks would potentially harm only my own animal (and me), not impair the chances for 3-10 other animals to get a home/stay alive.
I’ve had pet owners tell me very smugly “that will NEVER happen to me. My cat/dog will NEVER get out.”
Ha! I just love that word.
Comment by Mary Mary — July 16, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Gina,
I never meant to imply that elite breeders/show people don’t care about the bigger picture. I don’t think that at all.
Comment by Mary Mary — July 16, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
You’re absolutely right. Accidents do happen, to everyone. But just as defensive driving helps keep you out of a wreck, defensive pet-keeping helps keep your pets safe (and un-bred).
I have two rings of fencing in my yard (soon to be three, chicken-related expanation in an upcoming post). And you would NEVER see me trusting anyone except Judy my Dream Neighbor (veterinarians daughter, former boarding kennel owner, professional groomer and Afghan breeder for decades) with one of my girls in season. I wouldn’t trust my OWN FAMILY with such a dog.
Responsible breeders practice the “two door” rule: There are always TWO closed doors between a girl in heat and anything that could breed to her.
Seriously, that’s standard operating procedure.
Remember, McKenzie lived her entire life with intact males. And the only time she was ever bred she was sent to Minnesota for it. Otherwise, it was crate time, double-checking, double-doors and three weeks of utter hell for everyone.
Which, again, is why McKutie is no longer intact.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 16, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
I do read the blog on and off but I know there are commenters (not bloggers here) who think anyone who has a litter is evil and sentencing another dog to die. What is the phrase “don’t buy and let another one die” I believe. First of all I’m not sure why people assume just because someone purchases a dog that they might not also be open or already have rescues in their house. The one isn’t mutually exclusive of the other after all and most of the reputable breeders I know do try to make room for one more or at least support rescue through donations of money/goods/buying raffle tickets, etc.
I agree with there being responsibility in owning intact animals and I also am pro spay/neuter for pets. When I do have an occasional litter pet pups are sent on spay/neuter contracts/limited reg. and what I do is give the owner a CASH rebate when I receive proof of spay/neuter from their vet. In 20 years I have yet to have someone not comply with this but as I said, I don’t breed often, not even every year, so I know where my puppies are. I only have one intact male and I often send him away to a friend’s when I have a bitch in season. There is just my husband and I here, no “grandmas” in the area but I think my dog is happier not having to deal with the smell of a bitch in season that he can’t have so that is why he goes to stay with a friend. Plus then neither he nor the bitch have to spent more time in crates than I like for my dogs to have to spend.
All of my dogs have multiple health clearances, litters have eye exams prior to leaving, etc. I will do whatever it takes to care for my animals of any species (we also have horses, mini donkeys and are fostering 2 horses for an equine rescue currently).
Nice to chat with all of you. I do enjoy your posts here and will keep coming back. Just didn’t have a reason to comment before.
Comment by Deb H. — July 16, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
“Responsible breeders practice the “two door” rule: There are always TWO closed doors between a girl in heat and anything that could breed to her.”
This is a great practice to follow and what we have here as a set up is a “dog room” right off our kitchen that does have a solid door.
Then there are crates in both kitchen and dog room so there are technically 3 doors we can have between Zam (intact boy) and any girl in season. I also have 2 doors to the outside which is also entirely fenced so bitch in season can come in one door on the other side of the dog room door, intact male can go out other door on other side of dog room door, no contact. Works well.
That might make a good blog post some time…..ways to keep accidental breedings from happening……(I also have a blog, found your blog through twitter where I am debnk9s)
Comment by Deb H. — July 16, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
OK, I have a few comments. But no bones to pick, please just read and don’t assume I have a mocking bone in my body today. :)
Mary Mary, yes accidents can happen but, 22 years here and not one close call.
And responsible breeders, and responsible pet owners with intact pets, if they do have an accidental breeding. deal with it.
If one of my girls got “knocked up” do to a whoops, I would either:
Spay her immediately
Go ahead and whelp her out IF the breeding had a decent chance of resulting in healthy pups with no extra risk for mom
Consider an intervention to abort the litter, understanding that it might end up with a spay anyhow
What I would not do is “dump” those pups. IF I let the litter be carried, they would get all the same love, care and attention as a planned litter, even if Dad was a mystery.
They would be socialized, vet checked, screened. Placed with care on a spay/neuter agreement with big fat financial penalties spelled out if an adopter does not tow the line. They’d be chipped, and those chips would be purchased initially by me so that they can always come back.
And I would have my standard “return to breeder” clause in there too.
And I do not know of one single regular commenter here who “mocks” spay neuter. Un-blinking adherence to the dogma of “s/n good, reproductive organs bad”, yes. But is anyone here anti-spay neuter? I certainly have never gotten that impression. Just that for owned pets, s/n should be VOLUNTARY and a decision made with ones veterinarian.
Deb H, I don’t think there are many regular commenters who are in the gonads are evil camp. But sometimes those folks do pop on, scream, and leave.
Finally, Mary Mary, I must admit not really liking the term “elite”. I know you are simply trying to distinguish between poor practices and sound ones and while the actual definition may be positive, in most contexts in our modern society, we associate the term with snobbery which I sure try to avoid. It also implies that the standards for breeding in a responsible manner are too difficult to obtain for most, which should not be the case. In general, anyone who chooses to keep and breed pets needs to follow responsible breeding practices as a matter of course. If those practices become “standard”, as they are in many parts of Europe, then we greatly reduce the number of pets who will find themselves accidently in the world with no safety net.
“Responsible” really ought to be adequate, and standard too! ;)
Comment by JenniferJ — July 16, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
Regarding “elite.” I was ripped elsewhere as being an “elite breeder” for going to a puppy-mill protest. Frankly, until quite recently I was unaware that there were ANY seemingly sane people who honestly claim to believe that animal advocacy groups “made up” puppy mills — not just the term (which originated in a ’60s era Life mag article), but the fact that they even exist. Yes, there are people who hate PETA/HSUS so much that they defend mass production puppy operations as “necessary” — and trash a person like me who breeds in the home with compassion, knowledge and ethics as an “elitist” who won’t defend the “property rights” of puppy-milling scum.
Frankly, I’m with Jennifer: I am not “elitist” in the handling of my single planned litter. I am “responsible.” ALL puppies should be raised as McKenzie’s were, not as they are even in the cleaned-up high-volume commercial operations that the puppy-mill industry is pointing to as a model. Family pets are NOT livestock — which is why “U.S.D.A licensed” is the sure sign of a seller to AVOID.
Christie’s new saying: “Family pets from family homes.”
That covers a lot of territory beyond ethical, compassionate breeding, including great fostering programs for shelters and rescue groups.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 16, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Yeah, I recently learned somewhere that the term “puppy mill” was invented in the 1990’s by PeTA.
Funny how that time-space continuum can warp so much that I remember being agin’ ‘em in the 70’s.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 16, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
OK, point taken re: “elite.”
I will try my best to remember not to use it again.
“Responsible” just feels so … limp. Plenty of people are responsible but the posters here are, in addition, extremely knowledgable. That’s what I’m trying to convey with elite. Responsible to me sounds like I keep an umbrella in the car vs. elite means I’m a meteorologist.
But I won’t use that word no more.
Comment by Mary Mary — July 16, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Honestly, we need a new term. “Responsible” is like “no kill,” which means too many different things to too many different people.
We’ve been playing with “compassionate,” after seeing that the HSUS used it in its “guide to good breeders.” But that doesn’t really quite fit the bill, either.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 16, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
Yeah, compassionate is too much about heart. What word means heart AND head? Hmm.
I keep seeing this bell curve with smart/ethical breeders way out in 2% land.
Comment by Mary Mary — July 16, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
How about borrowing from the green movement?
“Low-impact breeder.”
“Organic breeder.”
“Sustainable breeder.”
None of those work but it suggests what I mean.
Comment by Mary Mary — July 16, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
My head hurts from thinkin’ so much.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 16, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
I am obviously and quite aggressively procrastinating so I may be working on this little word puzzle for lo unto 2 a.m.
Comment by Mary Mary — July 16, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
Ethical.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 16, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
H. Houlahan,
Yes, to date that has resonated the most with me because it implies thinking, weighing.
Comment by Mary Mary — July 16, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Maybe … and I’m just thinking out loud here …
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Hey! I like that. Let me use Teh Googles to see if it’s already being used.
…
Oh drat! Already taken by people who appear to be using it ironically.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 16, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
I like “Responsible”. It says you don’t just sell puppies and then forget about them - you accept responsibility for them for their entire lifetime.
It says you don’t just throw together any old b!tch and dog - you responsibly do breed and pedigree research, examine health histories, crossfault to maximize temperament and type, and so on. And that you responsibly provide nutritious food, appropriate shelter, and needed veterinary care.
And so on. It says that you do NOT abdicate your responsibility.
Yup - I like “Responsible”. Here’s what Dictionary.com has to say about it:
1. answerable or accountable, as for something within one’s power, control, or management (often fol. by to or for): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.
2. involving accountability or responsibility: a responsible position.
3. chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually fol. by for): Termites were responsible for the damage.
4. having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action: The defendant is not responsible for his actions.
5. able to discharge obligations or pay debts.
6. reliable or dependable, as in meeting debts, conducting business dealings, etc.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 16, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
Oh drat! Already taken by people who appear to be using it ironically.
Well, #1, I’m not going to let those frootloops co-opt a perfectly lovely English word like “ethical.” It’s ours and they can’t have it.
And #2, it must totally chap their butt-floss to see the term “ethical dog breeder.” Ethical dog breeding. Ethical breeding. Ethically-bred litter. I urge you to buy from an breeder who treats animals ethically.
Has Ingrid’s head ‘sploded yet?
Responsible is pretty good, but doesn’t resonate for me.
“Reputable” carries nearly, but not quite, the overtones of “elite.” There’s a subtext of “wins dog shows” that may not be intended, but may be received. And implies that it is what others think of you, and that they think of you, not what you actually do, that is important.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 16, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
I’m reminded that a lot of “civilians” will use “professional” to apply to a breeder who knows what he’s doing. As in, “I got her from someone whose dog had a litter — they weren’t professional breeders or anything, but the mother was nice.”
I should like it, as someone who has spent 18 years as a volunteer professional SAR responder. Because it’s axiomatic in the public safety world that “professional” applies to how you do your job, not whether you get paid for it.
But I think in this context it can’t be salvaged from the implication that a breeder who is doing it right is doing it a lot, and making quite a bit of money at it.
Too bad “amateur” has had its meaning degraded. It used to mean someone who followed a discipline for the love of it, literally. Now it implies a lack of skill, the opposite of its original sense.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 16, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
Actually the commercial (i.e. USDA) breeders co-opted “Professional” some years ago after hearing so much about what “Responsible” breeders do and realizing they didn’t live up to it.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 16, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
There used to be an article on one of the bogus registry sites some years ago about “Why you should buy your puppy from a Professional Breeder” but I can’t find it. Found this though:
http://www.columbiamissourian......-breeders/
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 16, 2009 @ 6:36 pm