We were having such a great discussion until I attempted to delete JenniferJ's duplicate comment. Somehow I managed to erase every one of your comments in some sort of evil glitch in my blogging program. Grrrrr....

Please continue...I'll try to find your comments somewhere in the ether and re-post them if I can.

Dr. Patty Khuly March 5th, 2009 03:01:32 AM

Obviously, those who have dogs for pleasure and take pleasure in raising puppies will have their rights, privacy and pleasure diminished through a Floridian Police state. This will leave dog raising to those who are doing so for reasons which make putting up with gestapo like inspections tolerable. It is evident, that such intervention would be counter productive in the way animals are handled. No state can police every move every individual in society makes, and this legislation will breed contempt for the very animals whose presents cause unjust invasion of citizen's privacy rights and the sanctity of the homes.

What the special interest groups (HSUS and Peta) behind this are trying to accomplish is the abolishment of pets, animals as food sources, scientific research, entertainment, companionship... well, actually the complete abolishment of man's symbiotic relationship with animals. The people at the top of these Political Action Committees are strict Vegans, they use no animal products at all, with a rather cult like religious abstention.

The underlying goal of the special interest groups which write the legislation being presented is to force society into complete segregation from animals as to these extremist animals are akin to slaves and man has no business manipulating other species. Seems although none of these folks are scientist they believe technology has lead us to a point where we can abandon animal use completely.

Of course we know that NOT to be true, and we also know the outcome would be extremely sad for both man and animal, along with fostering the extinction of many animals to say the least.

The larger question is why legislators are considering anything written by these special interests which only represent a very tiny fragment of our total population. Certainly we are aware that the media has been given an agenda and that agenda seems to be pushing the propaganda of the extremists in very hidden and diluted ways with the motive of swaying public opinion and without regard to any common sense or thought. Sadly the public is not realizing that if the government can come into homes to arbitrarily inspect a citizen's dog, they sure can make the same case for Sr citizens, or children without any cause just as they are proposing for animals. Simply because a child or geriatric is present in a home does not give the government the right to inspect without just cause or due process, and that certainly would be the next step if the simple presents of an animal eliminate government's requirement of just cause and due process.

Seems to me that all these things are tied together far more than meets the eye.

As we print more money than we can understand the numbers of, let alone the liability of owing we come that much closer to the pre WW11 state of Germany called a Weimar Republic, and as I recall getting dogs, particularly large dogs or packs of dogs out of the way was a priority of the time. There is no cause for this other than to control the people.

Beware of politicians who tout "Civilian Army" more powerful and as well funded as our forces overseas. Government must be reduced not made larger, the biggest mistake any society makes is to trust government unchecked. Ours has already grown out of hand. Historically we have fought for freedom, liberty and individual rights, let us not allow our own government to take away precisely what we have honored and fought for since the 1776.

A. N. March 5th, 2009 06:14:47 AM

Sorry to be the precipitating event. :-(

When I attempted to post it last night, it seemed not to load and then told me that I had entered the text incorrectly and to try again so I did, then found that there were two.

I won't be fooled again!

JenniferJ March 5th, 2009 06:49:14 AM

Actually, I wouldn't mind if all the comments got deleted if it would save us from more of these "The black helicopters are coming!" alarmists.....

KateH March 5th, 2009 06:54:47 AM

Kate, perhaps you'd like to read the following from Patrick Kwan, HSUS:

"Kwan asked how many people had seen the Oprah special on puppy mills. He

said that new laws in Pennsylvania will close puppy mills there and

cause them to move to New York because we have no "puppy mill" laws. He

claimed that the commercial breeders' lobby is approaching New York

legislators saying that a new industry will bring new revenue into the

state. The initial HSUS bill will set a cap of 50 intact animals per

location, but once this cap is in place, HSUS will strengthen this in

the future by lowering the cap each year. He likened it to getting

something criminalized as a misdemeanor at first and then increasing it

to a felony. He also agreed with an attendee who pointed out that,

currently, people in New York can have as many animals as they want, but

that HSUS will "crack down in later sessions."

Black helicoptors?   I don't think so......  That is DIRECTLY from the HSUS flunky.

Lisa March 5th, 2009 08:43:51 AM

Excuse me, but you can't possibly tell me that anybody who has 50 dogs is taking good care of those dogs. Funny, how if they are running loose in the house, it's a "hoarder", but if they are outside in tiny cages, it's a "breeder" whose rights need to be protected. Whether they are being vetted and property bred isn't even the point. It's no life for a dog.

Stefani March 5th, 2009 10:27:23 AM

I do feel that a warrantless search is the definition of our legal system, senseless. And are they truly protecting the animals or just searching for that needle in the haystack that will bring them publicity and donations. I watch animal planet and have seen too many dogs euthanized because someone with a rubber hand determines them aggressive. Living in PA I am well aware of puppy mills. This is not a business venture but a tortureous life for helpless creatures that deserve better. And due to breeders that become greedy the shelters are filled beyond capacity. What needs to be done is to limit the breeding by making breeders apply for a license that only allows to breed one specific type of dog.

Debby March 5th, 2009 11:20:55 AM

Stefani: I have seen a couple of fabulous kennels run by breeders with at least forty or fifty dogs in each. I'll try to get you the name of one--where my parents acquired their Jack Russell ten years ago. I do have trouble with, "a breeder is a breeder is a breeder" when I think about these great places. I've never been to a puppymill but I assume the conditions don't include cinder block houses with gingerbread roofs and numerous exercise areas on multiple acres. 

The problem with this legislation is that it preys upon people's belief that anyone who would keep ten dogs is somehow doing a disservice to the rest of as well as to the dogs themselves. It follows the "breeder is..." mantra to a T. And it does not address the real cruelty in a way that other laws don't already do. The only thing it does that's any different is tell you how many dogs you can own, forces you to keep them in research-style lodgings and allows law enforcement a ticket through your door any time they feel like it. 

Maybe it's not black helicopters but I do hear some wings overhead.

Dr. Patty Khuly March 5th, 2009 11:30:02 AM

There a working, retrieving and sporting dog kennels with 50 or so dogs that are neither running amok in a filthy house or locked outside in tiny cages.

Big indoor outdoor combo runs. Large communal exercise areas. And large areas to train and condition the dogs.

While it's not my ideal for how I feel my dogs should live, I have to say the couple of such facilities I've visited were clean and I saw a lot of happy dogs learning or working in there job. I saw dogs with phenomenal and enviable bonds with their human partners that I doubt seriously anyone with strictly pet dogs could replicate or understand.

Yes dogs were being bred, but with a purpose beyond that of making puppies for the pet trade. And in many cases these dogs would be bored being a pet with no other career. These are often high drive working dogs.

There is a huge gray area between hoarder and puppy mill. There are a thousand different varieties of breeder and breeding program. Hundreds of breeds, far more than AKC recognizes, and many kinds of intentionally bred types, rather than breeds, tailored to certain jobs. That's why throughout human history, even when times were deperatly lean,  our species historically felt that dogs were worth the allocation of resources to maintain. The very important role of dogs as pets and companions only is a recent development.

I grew up with people who used herding and working dogs to help them do ranch work. I know people who breed dogs for hunting and field work. I know someone whose family has bred tracking bloodhounds for three generations. I know people who do SAR work and breed and train for that. People who are working to preserve the integrity of ancient coursing dogs. People who are hired by fish and game to bring dogs into delicate habitats to help remove feral hogs whose presence may cause the extinction of the last of a species. People who raise livestock guarding dogs. 

I could tell you in my opinion the ideal set up for raising companion breeds on a small scale. But I could not say what is the ideal for raising and maintaining a viable, genetically diverse population of the breeds in these other catagories. One size does not fit all. 

JenniferJ March 5th, 2009 11:33:50 AM

I will take you guys' word that there are clean, well run kennels of that size. But I always thought in addition to clean surroundings, adequate exercise and food, and vet care, dogs needed LOVE and individual attention. How can you love on 50 dogs? Socialize them so they are adoption-ready when you retire them at a RESPONSIBLE age?

Maybe if you have a HUGE family.

I am so glad to be down to 4 pets after having had as many as 6 in the house. I mean, not glad about how I got there, but I feel like they are getting individual attention. It's hard for me to conceive of animals in those numbers getting adequate individual attention. I'd like to see it, as a matter of fact.

Stefani March 5th, 2009 12:16:24 PM

Stefani, the breeder that my sister's Lab comes from has a schedule for ensuring that each and every dog spends significant time inside with the family. And when they breed a litter, once mom is pregnant, she moves inside with the family, and stays there until she's done raising her pups. The dog my sister got was fourteen months old--they had intended to keep her, but she matured into a dog who was too small for the show ring, and not drivey enough for serious field trials.

However, she was, and is, a happy, well-socialized family pet.

And that's Labs. They're gregarious but not a pack breed. Some of the sporting breeds and terrier breeds, if you are in fact using them for what they were originally bred for, you need to keep large packs, because that's how they work--in packs. So that's what you'll find at the homes of responsible breeders of those breeds.

Lis March 5th, 2009 12:57:58 PM

Many larger kennels/training centers, are run by several people and will have multiple employees. those that are raising/training working dogs will often have interns as wel learning the skills of husbandry and training.

It actually works very much to those dogs advantage later in life as they are well socialized to many different people  and also to being with other dogs.

There is a difference between keeping dogs free in a home and having them as pets only and facilities such as Dr Khuly and I are describing. But just because it is a different lifestyle does not mean it must be inferior or cruel. Seeing dogs doing the jobs that their breed was developed to do, seeing them running and playing with other dogs during free exercise sessions or curled up snoozing happily away with one or two other kennel mates after a busy day, it's hard to say that they are unhappy. As I said, it's not how I raise my dogs but they are not working dogs and it's no puppy mill either. When you see them at work, I they are really enjoying themselves, bright eyes and really into the job at hand. I do not think they would be  as happy on the couch or trailing along with me on walks or even just playing at home. 

And I know people who do a great job with 25 plus dogs that are bred to be show dogs and pets. BTW the good ones usually do retire them from breeding at an appropriate age and they are often altered and placed to have a second career as a full time pet. These dogs almost all get house time daily, have been properly socialized and make excellent pets. Others "retire" from breeding showing etc to be full time pets onsite.

As I said there is a huge gray area between the out of control hoarder and the puppy milling nightmare where dogs are housed in little tiny nasty cages and come out, if they do come out, traumatized, unsocialized and terrified. 

Most of us know people with one human child who are overwhelmed and unsuited for the task. I am comfortable with my three but in awe of large families, most of which just seem to bubble along. There are also plenty of people, breeders and owners, who cannot or should not manage one or two or four dogs. Others do well with many times that.  When I was out of state last year, I visited one breeders home where she had 18 of her own dogs and six puppy mill rescue fosters. She, her husband and there teenage daughter had no trouble managing the dogs. Her own dogs were an absolute delight, could be handled and would work for anyone, and the job that she and a few other club member volunteers were doing with the rescues was fabulous.

Could I manage so many with the right set up? Probably, but I have no desire to do so. 

On the same trip I went to another person's home. She had three dogs, two of which were untrained and the facilities and set up were not anywhere I would place a dog (the purpose of my visit to this home was a home check for another friend who'd received a puppy inquiry).  

I did not consequently recommend the second person as a home. But if the breeder who I visited first ever contacted me about breeding to a dog of mine, I would say yes based on what I saw. Arbitrary numbers do not make sense. Hoarders are not deterred by limit laws and can almost always be "busted" via existing limit, health and welfare and hygeine laws.  And a breeder is not a breeder is not a breeder.

JenniferJ March 5th, 2009 01:03:35 PM

I still have to say that the "good breeder" with 25-50 dogs is a thing of the past...died out in the 50's. Those kennels had "paid full-time on the premises staff" and were *very* wealthy.

The well-to-do nowadays, have a limited number and mostly place show stock in individual homes to continue their breeding. A lot will place their older retired stock as pets neutered or not.

When I referred to the semi-commercial facility I purchased a Scottie pup, (spotless), this was not a breeder of multiple breeds, but just one. And at that, her number of adult dogs probably was less than 15. Were they nasty or timid, OMG, no---but no where living the life of a pet.

I do not abide the random, surprise knock on the door. I can hardly stand it when a salesman, political group, etc. does that. I'm from the state that touts "freedom" and less regulation...and yes, it can come with a big, big price. And I'm not referring to $$$.

Jennifer, I am not criticizing, but 18 dogs of varying ages, brought in the household in onesies or twosies, presents a different situation than the "kennel for dollars" or a stud or two and breedable age bitches.

Stef, I agree. 12-15 years ago, having 8 dogs & 2 cats was do-able for us, now down to 5 is reasonable, as "we" have gotten 15 years older!! And thank goodness, 3/5 are seniors, because I have no idea how I managed "dog school" twice a week, 30-45 minutes away! Barbara A. Albright/NH

Pocket's Story from NH March 5th, 2009 01:31:37 PM

Barbara, no issue with your statements. The gal I was referring too had a a beautiful hobby kennel built into the house.   She also had a small training facility at which she gave obedience and agility classes and partly leased out to another trainer to do so as well. Nice place on three acres.   It was certainly not the house-pets-who-also-show situation I have at my place, but I can't say the dogs seemed unhappy or unloved.

I was using it as an example of one of the in-between hoarder and puppy mill cases. As I said, there are a thousand different breeding situations and set ups out there. 

My experience is with show dogs. Non-sporting and toy show dogs at that. But I would not wish to speak for and guess the needs of those breeding hunting lurchers or hounds, livestock guardian breeds or working kelpies or running a working retriever kennel. 

That's my point, there is a lot in between dogs-for-dollars and "one or two show dogs who sleep on my bed and I may one day have a litter". And there are many set ups with more than 10 dogs that are neither disgusting puppy mill nor hoarder. Are all of these "acceptable"? Probably not. But they are not all bad either.

I simply get concerned when I hear people say that a certain number is automatically a puppy mill or a hoarding situation when there's much in between. One of my reasons for concern is that these laws, once in place are easy to whittle down. So if this year 10 is the limit before your home can be invaded with no warrant, in a few years that could easily be amended down to 5 or 3.

JenniferJ March 5th, 2009 02:19:31 PM

http://www.massfeddogs.org/Downloads/MassFed%20SD1448%20(Hedlund).pdf

JenniferJ, interesting comment...seems Massachusetts is addressing a similar bill aimed at encouraging obtaining a kennel license for 4 or more...hmmm.

other wording is gosh darn similar to FL's proposal BarbA./NH

Pocket's Story from NH March 5th, 2009 06:25:45 PM

Well looky here.....They've got over fifty dogs here.   (I know, I used to volunteer.) 

http://www.cci.org/site/c.cdKGIRNqEmG/b.3978475/k.BED8/Home.htm 

We've got ourselves a real, live puppy mill.....NOT.   Seeing Eye Dogs for the Blind has over 50 dogs as well.   I guess they are a mill also.... <rolls eyes>  

It's not the number of dogs someone owns; it's the quality of the care they receive.  I wonder what it will take for a few certain people to see this?   Perhaps when the "rules" you so strongly agree with finally get restrictive enough to apply to you?

Lisa March 5th, 2009 10:14:01 PM

The "sky is not falling" what is happening is simply that the public does not realize that a Political Action Committee (PAC) has an agenda. That agenda is to segregate humans from animals under the misnomer of "Animal Rights." Common sense should tell us that if animals had rights one of those rights would be to co-exist with humans, but far more emotional is the hot button phrase of murdering the animal for food, or "that anybody who has 50 dogs" can't properly care for them, or worse that all dogs must have human companionship. That later one really gets me it is the mark of anyone who has never lived with a pack of dogs. Yes, dogs are "pack" animals and derive as much companionship from each other, probably more, than they do from humans. What human companionship does is socialize the dog to better conform to households or humans with similar rules to those used by the former humans the animals lived with. However I am here to tell you that dogs who live in packs are not depressed or without companionship. They do enjoy each other at least as much, if not more, than we humans do. When was the last time you personally witnessed seven or 20 humans sleeping peacefully in a pile curled up with each other? This is a rather common scene in house holds that have a dozen or so smaller dogs of the same breed, very common. Often toy breed people have this pile of critters in bed with them and sometimes I wonder who it is that is being squeezed out, the dogs or the human owner.

Are we willing to pay tax dollars to knock on the bedroom doors of these owners? Are we so naive as to think that every owner has no household help, lives in a home less than 2,000 square feet, has dogs that are 150 Lbs each? Of course not. Dogs range from about 2 Lbs to a Mastiff named Zorba weighing 343 Lbs. I doubt Zorba and his entire litter is in any one's king size bed as adults, however Dancer the 18 oz Chihuahua (or other toy breeds) might be seen by the dozen in one bed along with their owner. You know, the owner who would have to suffer the anxiety of having an unannounced bedroom inspection by some dog catcher, or decide to give up those companions and worry about whether or not they will survive some where else. Now who is being abused? The animal or the tax paying citizen?

Interestingly HSUS always likes to talk about the homeless dogs yet they back laws lowering the limit on the number of dogs a house hold may have all the time. Is every home the same size? What about land size? Does everyone have the same size lot or yard? Certainly not, nor do we all pay the same amount of real estate taxes, there is no one size fits all rule. Obviously more dogs would have homes if limits were not mandated by municipalities. But the true agenda of HSUS is not to home dogs but to eliminate them, and make big money under the guise of emotional lies.

As far as HSUS and Peta having an agenda, I am not being paranoid. Ingrid Newkirk (head of Peta) and Wayne Pacelle president of HSUS have been strict Vegans for well over 20 years. That is their right but it is not nor should it be their right to force Veganism onto the rest of society without being forthright and making their end goal as well known as their emotional ploys. I am not giving up meat, milk or eggs and yes I am well aware that an animal did die for my dinner. I am also not interested in paying tax dollars to inspect dogs, I am not worried about eating them and becoming ill from some ingested canine bacteria. If I were worried about inspecting every citizen that cares for another animal my first preference would be to inspect those with children under school ages or geriatric individuals who might have bed sores. Our tax dollars are better used to care for humans who cannot speak for themselves don't you think? Are you all ready for unannounced inspections to make sure the baby does not have a diaper rash and Grandma has had her daily bath and he diaper changed also? No of course not, the reason being that every individual in society could at some time be at the mercy of unannounced home inspection and not just a smaller segment with more than so many dogs.

Pacelle (Pres. of HSUS) most famous quote is: “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”

— Animal People News, May 1993

Texas Humane Legislation Network and their three lobbyists are working with

HSUS to get another onerous bill passed. The HSUS bill has been filed in 16 states (counting Texas soon) with a stated goal of 34 states this year. It has been defeated in committee in three states already. This is a clear stated agenda.

Have any of you noticed Ms Newkirk's latest campaigns? She has likened the American Kennel Club to the KKK, sounds just like Pacelle when he said "produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out."

Got news for everyone, I among millions of other dog lovers am NOT interested in obtaining a shelter animal. I would be happy to help anyone else with one, but no thank you I would rather be able to select the specific feature of the animal for which I am going to buy food, medical care, and share my life. That is my choice, it must have the expression I find adorable, lest it would not obtain as much forgiveness from me for that occasional accident whether it be poor potty training or something beyond it's control, an upset stomach, submissive urination, illnesses associated with old age. I want what I want and I thank human civilization for creating so many selections for me to be able to choose a companion animal that is not only attractive to me but also has a temperament that I can see, choose and study prior to choosing the animal. It is my belief BTW that if the government did not go so far as to literally outlaw all breeding both commercial and by owners and only allowed huge commercial breeding through HSDA regulations (which is preposterous as dogs are NOT food sources in his country), the government would be harming both its citizens and the dogs. Simply put, huge breeds can be quite powerful, they can make adorable healthy puppies but if only raised under USDA regulations which prohibit any previous to water surfaces (that right no towels or blankets etc.) and are only raised in large commercial kennels how is temperament going to be watched through the life of the dog? How would breeders be able to know which lines are not as mentally fit to be household pets? The truth is they would not and the result would not be good for either society or the wonderful animals, (yes) mankind has created.

When it comes to farm animals without realizing it I am sure we all gain from selective animal breeding with each glass of milk we drink, every ice cream cone, egg, piece of chicken, egg, or steak etc. I am sure farmers enjoy many intentionally selected and bred characteristics of their animals also, from lessened illnesses to better production and everything in between including temperament and workability.

Meanwhile, although some may think only I believe that HSUS has an agenda which they have openly stated is to stop all dog breeding, along with animal farming, I am by no means alone, just better informed at the moment. Hopefully you all will be informed soon and do some further research beyond the first few pages of googled links putting forth HSUS propaganda.

You might find this one:

http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=B316A2C6-5056-B82A-377E3F237493DE1A

From The dean of Iowa State University's College of Agriculture:

"The difficulty with the Humane Society of the United States is that they really are not about helping people understand the science of the issue. They are about, really, building to the rhetoric involved and so you have a set of people in California that are very uninformed about the issue that voted to make a decision that will, in fact, have tremendous consequences across the United States,"

Or this:http://www.filadog.com/html%20docs/Breed%20Specific%20Legislation/critic_speaks_against_hsus.htm

First, HSUS allows its financial supporters - ordinary, animal-loving Americans - to believe it spends an enormous annual tax-free budget of $123 million on caring for animals, when its real agenda is passing extremist legislation.

Second, HSUS calls itself a mainstream advocacy group, hiding or downplaying the fact that it has an extremist agenda. HSUS is all about promoting vegan diets - no meat, no dairy - and ending traditional human-animal relationships across the board, from agriculture to biomedical research.

Third, HSUS constantly engages in deceptive propaganda, half-truths and outright lies in well-funded media campaigns to win its political and legislative battles. But they are not held accountable for their tactics because they are a nonprofit group that enjoys political free speech protections.

In fact anything from NAIA will help educate.

Think about it, HSUS takes in all kinds of money up from 123 million a few years ago to I think over 200 million in recent years. They spend that money NOT on animal care although those that gave it think so. They spend that money as a Political Action Committee a (PAC) to push propaganda a line pockets of legislators.

Which is your legislator?

Convinced by propaganda and not using common sense, corrupt and paid off, or a Vegan who's agenda is also to wean society away from animal use one baby step at a time?

(That later is fascist BTW as although the Vegan should have his life choices, so should the animal loving meat and meat eating larger group in society.)

A.N. March 5th, 2009 11:44:48 PM

One more comment I would like everyone to think about:

Vegans have made an almost religious decision that eating animals or animal by products is beyond any possible justification man can have, to a Vegan doing so is an abomination.

So, how is it that man can have pets for enjoyment that eat other animals and add to that abomination?

Let's not forget that the Humane Society of the U. S. is a Vegan organization. Many call HSUS Peta in a suit.

As was once quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL

Better dead than fed, PETA says

"DON'T BE FOOLED by the slick propaganda of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The organization may claim to champion the welfare of animals, as the many photos of cute puppies and kittens on its Web site suggest. But last week, two PETA employees were charged with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty each, after authorities found them dumping the dead bodies of 18 animals they had just picked up from a North Carolina animal shelter into a Dumpster. According to the Associated Press, 13 more dead animals were found in a van registered to PETA...."

Why are dogs better dead than fed you might ask. Well, if they are dead than more animals would not be killed to feed them any longer would they? Vegans cannot fathom that anything out weighs using other animals to feed one we simply have for our own enjoyment such as dogs (or cats for that matter). It is that simple. Why government wants dogs out of the way is another mater all together.

A.N. March 6th, 2009 12:17:40 AM

All of the bigger kennels spoken about here - the ones raising hunting/SAR/assistance dogs and well-run larger show kennels already have larger and cleaner accomodations than what is spoken about in the proposed bills, so they wouldn't be violating any regulations. It's obvious that they aren't puppymills like the ones exposed and closed down by those horrible, evil, bad psychos from HSUS. It's ridiculous that the governing bodies of all those dog groups (and they do exist - they formulated rules, and collect dues) don't try very hard to expose bad breeders, saying "It's not our problem and we have no authority." Of course, they could try to work with authorities, but then they claim they're too small and don't have the resources.

So, while I'm not a member and don't agree with HSUS (or PETA) on many things they do, at least they step up and get puppymillers and dog fighting rings exposed and shut down. Screaming that they are 100% evil is just like saying that Christian fundamentalists (any religious fundies actually) that are trying to restrict people's rights are 100% evil. If you really think that this country is going to allow warrantless searches over pets and that HSUS and PETA are going to make everyone become vegans, you really don't know the American people.

KateH March 6th, 2009 05:25:05 AM

A.N., I am not a vegan. Nor a vegetarian per se (although I have been twice in my life) but I have to chime in and say the picture you paint of vegans is a misrepresentation, by and large, and is frankly, paranoid.

I know vegans who are vegan because THEY PERSONALLY DO NOT WISH TO USE OR CONSUME ANIMALS. It is a moral and ethical choice for them. Not some lynchpin in a pseudo-communist-fascist world domination scheme.

Extremist attitudes against vegans and vegetarians are promoted by agribusiness, who have used 9-11 shamelessly as leverage to pass the American Enterprise Terrorism Act -- the most unconstitutional piece of drivel I've ever heard of. It basically creates a new class of criminal only applicable to those who act on behalf of animals. Talk about a law that is likely to be abused by the government - THAT'S a much better example than the Florida thing. Why? Because it's monied interests, agribusiness, leveraging the paralyzing power of the word "terrorist" to get blanket permission to jail "animal activists" even for what should be protected free speech activity. As for the Florida law, I'm not for it, but the likelihood that it would be used is less, because the interests that would argue for its use are NOT the monied interests. Its people advocating for helpless animals without votes or voices. But agribusiness, big pharma, research labs, they sure don't want people to know what goes on in COVANCE and other places hidden from sight. Or Smithfield, for that matter.

Stefani March 6th, 2009 06:01:23 AM

Just yesterday some AC officer used a sting operation in Louisville Ky to get a breeder to come with a puppy as the AC officer was posing as a buyer. All dogs were confiscated and are to be spayed and neutered today BEFORE due process and without regard to the irreversible harm that will be caused. Along with extensive monetary fines against the home owning tax paying citizen who allowed her dog to have a puppy.  The cost of suing Louisville will be exorbitant, a cost the AKC will not get involved with, nor do they have the ability to. How are you going to give that person their animal's reproductive systems back? How much will be lost to the gene pool of breeds by this type of American unwillingness to allow  warrant-less searches and worse sting operations for having one litter of puppies? If this is American resistance we have come a long way from the tea party days. We had better hold shot gun out for anyone wishing to try Eugenics on humans again, or sterilize American women. After all David Rockefeller's CFR has already made written statements with the objective of reducing the US human population by 50%. Could our dog compliance simply be a test, to see how much we will take before we turn on our government or resolve to be a slave to it?

(FYI: "Underlying 'America's New War' is international 'population planning.' According to Rockefeller-directed population planners, additional depopulation must occur in advance of the New World Order. In the United States, according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) March/April 1996, Foreign Affairs journal, plans to depopulate America by half to achieve ‘a U.S. population in the range of 125 to 150 million, or about its size in the 1940s,’ are underway.”  http://educate-yourself.org/cn/2001/911attacksetspopreduction23sep01.shtml

I am sorry Kate, but surely you must realize that HSUS and Peta understand that they have a long way to go before conforming the world to their diets. Making raising animals next to impossible takes them out of society and gets them closer to their goal, as does making animal products extremely expensive. Try buying a dozen eggs in California a year from now. You might not want to eat them if they are imported from Tijuana.

They are thinking baby steps and long term goal, and they are reaching their objective by leaps and bounds right in front of our eyes. You just have to wake up and see it. They do not care if you or I share their beliefs, they only care about the ends for which any means to them is justified as is evident when they raid mink farms or let show dogs out of crates to be hit by cars on freeways.

A.N. March 6th, 2009 06:04:09 AM

Ecoterrorism: Extremism in the Animal Rights and Environmentalist Movements

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/ecoterrorism.asp

From the above link:

During the past two decades, radical environmental and animal rights groups have claimed responsibility for hundreds of crimes and acts of terrorism, including arson, bombings, vandalism and harassment, causing more than $100 million in damage. While some activists have been captured, ecoterror cells - small and loosely affiliated - are extremely difficult to identify and most attacks remain unsolved. Although it has been overshadowed by Islamic terrorist threats since September 11, ecoterrorism remains one of the country's most active terrorist movements....

In recent years, an increasing amount of terrorist activity in the United States has been carried out in the name of animal and environmental protection. Automobile dealerships, housing developments, forestry companies, corporate and university-based medical research laboratories, restaurants, fur farms and other industries are targeted across the country. Although no one has yet been injured in a domestic ecoterror attack, the increasingly violent nature of attacks suggests that someone will be hurt before long....

In recent years, fast-food restaurants have been firebombed and car dealerships and housing developments burned to the ground in the name of "ecology" and "animal rights." Increasingly, people that work for companies perceived as harming animals or destroying the environment are targeted as well....

A.N. March 6th, 2009 06:15:31 AM

Oh, A.N. Wow, what dreams you must have at night!

No matter how many acts of vandalism or destruction you point to, the fact is: There ALREADY ARE LAWS against vandalism, destruction of property, and violence. I am all for enforcing those laws. But creating a "super-criminal" class based on the CONTENT OF SPEECH is patently unconstitutional. CONTENT OF SPEECH should have nothing to do with severity of punishment or objective and fair justice.

Even IF what you were saying wasn't an exaggeration, it doesn't matter. The crime of a group of Saudi's against the US doesn't justify special harsh laws for muslims. Same logic. Even if it's true that "animal activist" violence is on the rise, it justifies nothing more than the same objective and fair justice under existing laws that exist for the same crimes committed for other reasons.

To do otherwise IS in fact, to come very close to condoning "THOUGHT POLICE." There's something to chew on!

Stefani March 6th, 2009 06:25:09 AM

Boy, the anti-animal people really are getting shrill and seemingly desparate. The secrets of abuse come out and they can't stand it, they lose their minds trying to control knowledge and awareness of what's going on. Agribusiness and pharma on their side but . .. the truth isn't hideable forever.

Stefani March 6th, 2009 06:27:01 AM

As their are already laws on the books regarding animal cruelty.

So, you go back to your camp and tell them to leave the already existing laws alone without adding more and surely (so long as that camp refrains from any more destruction and vandalism) they too would be left alone.

Maybe Pacelle and Newkirk would like to spend some of that donated money for the cause which those who gave it assumed it would be used rather than to pass unneeded legislation criminalizing Tax Paying, home owning citizens who have vandalized no one.

A.N. March 6th, 2009 06:33:03 AM

A.N. I don't have anything to do with the Florida law. I already said I don't support it but it hardly matters, I don't live there. When you lump people like me in with vandals you are no different than the people who lump responsible breeders in with puppy millers.

Stefani March 6th, 2009 06:44:37 AM

Sadly, the "puppymillers" aren't going to be concerned with this bill or any other, it will simply drive them further and further underground which will result if grosser abuse to the animals in their custody :(    People who are running puppymills hiding dogs in their attics already "know" what they are doing is wrong so a new law isn't going to effect anyone except those of us who already obey the law.  I don't understand why they don't take all this time, money and effort and launch educational campagns - end the demand and the millers will have to find another source of income...it is really freakin simple!

Every single american should understand why buying a puppy from a pet store is bad - if that alone stopped then I would guess alot of puppy millers would shut down.   - You can't stop a trade based on laws haven't we learned this from the war on drugs ?  It takes education !!!!!

LC March 6th, 2009 07:21:27 AM

A.N. I don't believe you are more animal or law educated than some of us here. We are very intelligent and we know "who is who."

Are your business getting hurt that bad? Welcome to the crowd. . .

Fotini March 6th, 2009 09:53:25 AM

I would like to expand a little on what was posted about the sting in Louisville, KY. What the poster didn't mention about this particular sting is the owner who had her dogs and puppies confiscated had only 3 breeding dogs. THREE people! One male and two females. Both females had a litter of pups. Stefani, this "puppy miller" had one less breeding dog than YOU have as pets! In my state you have to have 3 intact females to even be considered a kennel. This is what your laws are leading up to. I have to wonder how many people who claim shelters are overcrowded have read ANY of the information online about how many dogs are IMPORTED every year from other countries into U.S. shelters? If U.S. shelters are SO overcrowded, then someone PLEASE explain to me WHY it is necessary to import rescues from China, Puerta Rico, Mexico, Thailand, and other counties. Why do shelters in the northern states have pups shipped in from the southern states to fill their demands for those who choose to obtain a shelter pet? Of all the recent kennel raids that have received so much publicity for the HSUS, how many have you seen that are anything other than small breeds in demand by the public? How many of these so-called abused dogs in need of rescue have you seen ready for 'adoption' within days of rescue? How many of you have read comments from vets examining them that found the dogs to be clean, in reasonably good health, and sociable? How many of you have looked at the accompanying pictures and videos and saw dogs and kennels that even looked close to the filth being described in the raids? In 90% of what I have seen and read over the last year, they were not dogs and pups in horrid conditions. About 10% actually were. I watched a video of HSUS during a raid stating how the dogs were in filth, covered in feces and urine, while they were holding up clean dogs and pups and hugging them as they were being removed from kennels with no excrement in sight. They were talking about how strong the ammonia smell was yet you could see a large exhaust fan in the background that wasn't even turned on to try to air out the building. Not a single worker was in a hazmat suit that one normally sees in a raid where the conditions are that bad. None were wearing gloves either. When they were outside by the runs coming off the buildings, they stated these dogs were cowering and afraid of human touch while dogs behind them were dancing around trying to get their attention. They said the dogs didn't have so much as a dish of water while languishing in the hot sun. That part was true..you could see the automatic waterers on the building if you looked though. You could also see the hair on the dogs blowing in the breeze while in those runs with covered tops for shade and leaves blowing on the trees overhanging them. And you know what? Not a single one of those 'over-heated dogs' was even panting while dancing around in an attempt to get someone to play with them. Even though you could see with your own eyes, if you took the time to LOOK, that the dogs were happy, healthy, well-fed, in buildings with AC and heat, roomy indoor areas, with large runs to use as they pleased, and in clean quarters with..would you believe it?..TOYS to play with. The vets who examined the dogs found none in bad health, none dirty, none unsociable, and didn't even mention overgrown nails on a single dog and I certainly didn't see overgrown nails on any of the many viewed in that video. The only thing they found was a few..just a few..were due for teeth cleaning. She was raided not because her dogs were in danger or uncared for, but because she had more dogs than you or I could comprehend caring for. A full day for me is caring for the 14 I have. 5 of my breeding dogs plus my spayed Doberman live in the house full time with the females only going to the kennels when they are in heat to either skip a cycle or 2 or to be bred. I have 4 males and 10 females who get my attention every day of the year. I could not comprehend having several hundred to care for as this lady did, but I commend her for what I saw of her dogs and what the vet reports had to say about them. To have that many dogs that were cared for and social is a tremendous job and she seems to have accomplished it. She didn't just recently acquire them. The woman had been in business in that location for 47 years! This raid was done early in the morning and with no warning. The fact that her kennels were as clean as they were and her dogs were as clean as they were and the vets had nothing bad to say about them is proof that she didn't try to do a hurried cleaning job to look good on camera. It tells me that this woman put in the time, with hired help, to care for the dogs and spend time with them so they were friendly. Just because you or I couldn't do it is not a reason to automatically assume no one can. So we have gone from a person with only 3 breeding dogs to one with several hundred, all of which were confiscated. While I am more than aware there are people out there who don't take care of their animals, it's more than just numbers. It's individual responsibility in caring for what you have. I personally bought a pup from a raided kennel. It was one that needed to be closed. Every one of the 88 dogs and pups seized was in need of veterinary care. The pup I bought was one of the healthier ones. He was 3 months old, and had rickets, respiratory infection, digestive tract infection, had eye surgery twice during his first year, was showing hip dispaysia by 6 months of age, and was wormed 5 times before the parasites were cleaned out. So believe me, I DO know what a substandard kennel is. Jack was a great dane. He lived for 8 years and I loved him dearly. I would turn in my own child for treating animals as that woman did. But I will NOT sit in judgement of anyone based on how MANY animals they have, only on the care they give the ones they do. Shame on anyone who would judge others for children OR animals for any other reason! In this country you are supposed to be innocent UNTIL proven guilty, but reading through these posts I sure don't see that. When those limits get to the point they affect YOU, maybe you will finally see what we've been trying to tell you. I know a family in NJ found out a few months ago when they were hit with a limit law of 3 pets and had to decide which of their 5 well-cared for dogs they loved had to find new homes. Be careful what you wish for!

Nancy March 6th, 2009 10:00:26 AM

Nancy re: ", this "puppy miller" had one less breeding dog than YOU have as pets!"

Again, this side of the argument is showing lack of rationality.

NEVER ONCE did I say all breeders=puppy millers. Please read upward.

You also say "This is what YOUR laws are leading up to."

Are you addressing me?

Since when was it MY law?

a) I never said I support the law b) You are proving that you are incapable of rational thought. You are raving against things that haven't even been said.

Woooo woooo yes black helicopters. Messages from outer space. Big Brother. Etc.

And really, a good conscientious breeder shouldn't have much to fear from an inspection. But I'm not supporting the warrantless thing, so stop throwing that on me.

Stefani March 6th, 2009 10:30:52 AM

Oh, Nancy, you asked a question as to why shelters in Northern States need to transport pets from Southern states to have enough adoptable animals. I actually know one of the reasons.

For a while, I was communicating with people concerned about sheltering in my local community. We have a problem of dog supply and demand, like so many areas.

The problem is: Our shelters are full of big dogs. All of the demand is for small dogs (as it is a metro area). Advocates are trying to coordinate just what you describe to address the problem. Frankly, our shelters seem half full of pits and pit mixes, which is another problem. Everyone wants a little dog.

And yes, many dogs are still euthanized. There aren't enough homes for all those pits and pit mixes. They have better luck shipping IN small dogs (which get snapped up if they are reasonable young and healthy) then shipping OUT large dogs.

Yes, there are too many dogs in shelters, not enough homes for them all, and yet still localities seek to import dogs that meet local demand. These two conditions exist at once. Solve it and you will have solved a major problem facing sheltering today.

As for cats, it's very dismal, and no sane person could ever argue that there is a cat shortage, anywhere.

I wish there were.

Am I against breeding? No. I do understand the love of a particular breed. I accept that responsible breeding for love of breed is defensible. But irresponsible breeding, and ill treatment is not. Hopefully all here can agree. The question is how to address that. I never said this law you are talking about does. What I said is that I can't imagine the doomsday scenarios being painted coming to pass, when we who care about animals have SUCH A VERY HARD TIME getting anyone in government or law enforcement to give a hoot, on any day, for any reason. And yes, I think Tammy Grimes is a hero, and she's a property criminal. So there. Women are property in some cultures. Humans were property in the US 160 years ago. The history of marriage is filled with property connotations. I would make property rights inviolable if it means justifying abuse of living beings. All things must have moderation, we can tolerate some limits on our "property rights" -- we already do. I'm not saying this law is IT. I'm saying I'm sure it's well intended, and maybe they will change it to make it more workable.

Stefani March 6th, 2009 10:51:05 AM

I meant I would NOT make property rights inviolable.

Stefani March 6th, 2009 10:52:33 AM

Stefani, I apologize that it sounded the way it did to you. Although the black helicopter thing is wearing a bit thin. My point is, if you are in FL, and these laws pass, it will be your law whether you support it or not. If a good conscientious breeder has nothing to fear, then please explain why this woman in KY had her 3 dogs confiscated and with no chance to prove guilt or innocence, her male being castrated this morning (the day after confiscation)and her females will be spayed as soon as the pups are weaned. Where was this person's due process to being proven she was guilty of anything? I chose you because you said you have 4 pets. Not counting her pups, which are temporary pets who will go to new homes when weaned, she had 1 less breeding dog than you have pets. From all counts of the people standing up for this woman, her dogs and pups are well-cared for, so if that would make her conscientious in caring for her pets, I would say she had a lot to fear. In fact her fear is now reality. How about the show breeder in CO who had only 9 dogs? 2 retired from show and breeding, 1 female with pups, 4 other dogs actively showing, and the others rescues he had taken in. He was also very active in breed rescue. All 9 were confiscated. He got them back but at the price of 4 pups dying in shelter and the others sick upon return. Not to mention the thousands of dollars he spent in legal fees to get his dogs back. The case is still ongoing. All this because he dared to try to speak against limit law bills on the table. He had even bought property in a different county without limit laws and his house was broken into to get the dogs while he was gone to a show with some. AC knew he was scheduled to move in 2 weeks and knew he was gone to the show. They had agreed to leave him alone since he was moving and then got an injunction to take his dogs on charges of missing a special hearing that they did not even tell him about. Neighbors stated that AC sat in parked cars waiting for him to leave for the show and his wife to leave for work and then broke the windows and doors to achieve entry. They had his cell number so he could be contacted at any time. The man bent over backwards to work with these people. He was conscientious about his dogs and his rescues and he should have had nothing to fear, should he? I don't see black helicopters, nor do I receive alien messages, but I surely do see that the old adage is true. "There is none so blind as he who will not see." And anyone who does not see that all breeders, regardless of how well they care for their animals, how closely they follow the laws, how spotless they keep their kennels, are being targeted with these laws, will learn the hard way when all the breeders are gone and so are the pets. When the laws, whether you agree with them or not, finally get to the point they affect you (a collective you for the doubters, not you personally Stephani), I think only then will you see the breeders weren't just being paranoid. I hope you WILL keep in mind that it is the breeders and pet owners aware of what is being legislated and how it will affect everyone, breeders and owners alike, are the ones who have been fighting for your rights as well as our own.

Nancy March 6th, 2009 11:40:08 AM

Stephani, Great info on the shelters! I don't think anyone here disagrees about the fact that there are bad kennels in need of being dealt with. I wouldn't shed a tear for the people who run them losing their animals, only for the dogs/cats that were in their lack of care homes. BUT, I wouldn't agree to it being done without warrant and probable cause. As far as stiff penalties dealing with those people, I am not against that at all. One of the big problems with pitts and pitt crosses being in shelters, and being euthanized, aside from the normal reasons with any dogs in shelter..got too big..owners were idiots and got a dog from an idiot breeder who didn't try to make sure they matched up owner with compatible animal..home foreclosures and couldn't take the pet, etc., are the BSL laws. 10 to 30 days (depending on your area) to find homes for breeds being banned in places where they AREN'T being banned is a huge problem. Same with limit laws. Not only do limit laws put happy pets out of homes, they reduce the number of homes available to take in shelter animals. Here is an interesting article I read earlier today written by a soldier who has been fighting for our country and constitution. I hope you don't think he also is seeing black choppers and hearing aliens. http://www.emtelegraph.com/index.php/opinion/979-Animals-Need-Welfare,-Not-Rights.html He also understands that the future we foresee is not just 'a gloom and doom flight of fancy', but is being methodically pushed into a possible reality. He's not the only one. I've read similar stories by other returning soldiers who have come home to see our rights being taken away while they were gone fighting to protect them.

Nancy March 6th, 2009 12:15:19 PM

Nancy, there's an odd thing about the cases you mention - I can't find any info on them. And the link you mention in the last post doesn't return anything. I asked you before the original group of comments went away, to come out and name the beautiful commercial kennels (and with at least city info) so others could check them out too, and you never did. You have these stories, but how can we verify what you're saying?

KateH March 6th, 2009 12:32:26 PM

Nancy, thanks for your reasonable tone. Sorry for the snarkiness. I will look at the link.

Stefani March 6th, 2009 12:37:50 PM

Kate, Google the name Bob Attleson Littleton, CO and then pull your head out of the sand.

Lisa March 6th, 2009 02:45:19 PM

Stefani and Kate, If the full link doesn't work for that article, try this one http://tinyurl.com/cp7pys Kate, just go to youtube and type HSUS into the search and look..really look...at some of the videos of raids they have done. I'm sure you'll find the one I spoke of in my recent post. It's in NC. Make sure you read what I said about her kennel in my post above. I didn't say she was USDA licensed (no idea if she was), just that I didn't see in the video anything to back up what the HSUS was saying as they were taking her dogs. I'll see if I can find the link to the article as well so you can read through it to see what the vets had to say about the dogs. You can find licensed commercial kennels in your area, wherever it is, through the USDA. I'm sure if you take the time to go visit them, you'll find good and bad both.

Nancy March 6th, 2009 04:59:40 PM

Nancy, a lot of what you say is absolutely correct and a real concern; "animal rights" activists are actively working for a complete elimination of domestic animals and they use reasonable-sounding legislation and alarmist rhetoric and a conflating of all who breed into "puppy millers" to advance their agenda.

But you're doing the same conflation, of responsible hobby show breeders and large sporting/working kennels and large-scale commercial breeders, and saying we have to protect all of them if we want to protect any of them.

Large-scale commercial breeders, USDA-licensed or not, are not good for dogs, not good for the breeds, and not good for pet owners who want a happy, healthy, well-adjusted family pet. USDA kennel standards are livestock standards, designed to produce healthy animals for human consumption, not animals well-adjusted to be healthy, happy human companions. USDA standards <i>prohibit</i> the kinds of conditions that dogs whose future is as household companions for humans should be raised in. There are USDA-licensed kennels that are living up to both the letter and the spirit of the USDA regs, that are as good as it is possible to be under those standards--and their breeding dogs live their entire life in kennels, have a few minutes of "excersise" out of those cages five days a week, have no toys that can't be easily sterilized (if they have toys at all, which is unlikely; nothing in the regs requires it, and it's a potential violation if you get inspected and the inspector decides it's not sanitary enough), are not screened for potential genetic problems in their pedigree, are not temperament tested, never get to play in the grass or the mud because that<i>is</i> a violation.

USDA-licensed breeders are the source of most of the purebreds that wind up in shelters, because pet stores make no attempt to screen buyers for appropriateness or to match the temperaments and energy levels of shopper and puppy, and because the puppies haven't been raised in a normal environment and are more likely to have behavior problems that the inexperienced owners have no idea how to cope with or correct.

It's hard to distinguish backyard breeders from responsible breeders. It's pretty easy, though, to distinguish puppy millers from even the larger-scale kennels that are normal among some of the working and sporting breeds. Protecting the responsible breeders doesn't mean we have to protect the puppy millers, and calling them "licensed commercial kennels" doesn't make them anything other than puppy millers.

Lis March 7th, 2009 04:20:04 AM

Lis, Sorry..my intent was not to disparage the difference between large kennels, working kennels, show kennels, and good pet breeding kennels. It's to do with human rights and animal welfare as a whole. I just can't condone raiding kennels, regardless of size, if the animals are not in jeopardy of their lives. I'm old enough to remember when shelters worked WITH owners instead of this forcefulness being done now. While I'm totally behind animals being removed from kennels that are endangering their well-being, I miss the days when shelters and neighbors would help down-size to numbers where the owner could manage them. They worked with the people to help find homes for excess numbers. Back then people weren't afraid to ask for that kind of help. Now they are in fear of being jailed as felons because things got out of hand in size. You can't legislate or scare people into being responsible. Education is what is needed. Help is needed. I have my own standards for things, as I'm sure every other breeder does. I don't keep puppies just because they didn't sell. I don't add them into my program because they didn't sell. What I do is to spay/neuter them if they are still here at 6 months and I contact my vet to find elderly people who have lost a pet of many years and can't afford on SSI to buy another one and offer them the pup for free. I trust my vet to send me to people who have proven to care well for their pets. I do this because I know how many dogs I am able to care for myself and I will not allow myself to go over that number. It keeps me where I want to be and it gives those pups a good home. I don't mind if people overlook a pup because it "has wonderful qualities, but just isn't the right color". Those people are superficial and didn't need one of my pups anyway. No one gets a pup without being screened and supplying a vet reference on how they care for current pets or cared for past pets. Instead of ostracizing pet shops, give them higher standards to meet. Require they screen buyers just as many breeders do. For that matter, it should be required of anyone who sells animals. All sellers should be also required to offer a minimal 1 year health guarantee against hereditary faults. Those who don't want the bother are less likely to want to deal with breeding. If it's too much work and responisbility, they can find other venues for making an extra buck. When kennels like Sharon Roberts' are raided (btw she's in WV, not NC), they put a burden on all concerned. I know the folks at pet law would have a cow over me saying this, but I believe 50 animals is an acceptable limit for any breeding facility. I don't condone having several hundred animals for breeding purposes, but I understand that setting that limit opens the door to the AR groups pushing to continually lower that number until it hits zero. So that puts me in the spot to make the decision that I feel I need to stand up for people being raided based solely on numbers. It's not necessarily a comfortable spot to be. I feel whether you have just a few animals or several hundred, you are responsible to care for them so their lives are not endangered. If a limit is set at 50-100, then if you are found over that limit, but your animals are in good shape, then the effort should be put forth to help get the numbers down to the limit by helping find homes for them, but leaving them where they are instead of confiscating all the animals or filling shelters with them. Regardless of what solutions we can find, I just feel there are better ways to go about it than coercive legislation when education and reasonable welfare laws will do more good. Pushing to have the welfare laws enforced will do more good than more laws that can't or won't be enforced. But those laws have to be formed by people who understand and live in the world of animal husbandry, not by groups like HSUS and PETA who have an agenda to ban all pets, livestock, aquariums, zoos, circuses, etc. I'm not afraid to turn in anyone who is just into breeding for money and keep their animals in filth and sqaulor. The ones who won't be educated on basic care and sanitation that will dig into their profits. Because animals should not be a throw away commodity, they should not be produced in numbers larger than the population of pet owners can withstand. Hobby breeders who raise a litter only once every few years cannot fill the demand (and in many cases will overburden the ability of many to buy a pet) for the number of pet owners/potential owners. So we then turn to other breeders who strive to produce good quality, healthy pets at more affordable prices. Then you jump to large commercial facilites who were ready to meet the demand for purebreds, and in some cases the so-called 'designer breeds'. At the bottom of the heap are the substandard kennels most people think of as puppy mills. They come in all shapes and sizes. We all agree they have to go. So where and how to we figure where to set limits on numbers to sustain availability to pets for everyone who wants (and cares for) them? And how do we do that so that AR activists can't continually get that number lowered until they are gone or endangered in number? How do we come up with good laws that are fair to our animals and breeders both? How do we work it so that the animal loving community can work together instead of against each other?

Nancy March 7th, 2009 08:40:53 AM

Nancy, what is "I miss the days when shelters and neighbors would help down-size to numbers where the owner could manage them" supposed to mean? Why would any (forgive the harshness) non-retarded and/or responsible human being need help in "down-sizinig" in terms of the numbers of dogs they breed? Granted, all of my dogs (and cats) are neutered and spayed, and I have never had a single litter in my house (except homeless foster cats that were too far along), I am not sure I understand how it is possible to have more litters than intended or desired. And why? Education is needed? Adults need to be educated about the problem of pet overpopulation? Communities need to "work with them?" What about their sense of civic duty? What about their good old common sense? Concern for life? You said you "work with your vet" to find homes for dogs you haven't sold. How about not producing so many dogs that you need your vet's "help" in finding them homes? The homes that your vet might be able to find for your oversupplied dogs could be offered to dogs already in shelters that are killed (some in gas chambers) every day of the week in this country. I am not with PETA or HSUS, and don't agree with all that they do (in fact I disagree with much of what they do), but I have done rescue work for the past 12 years, and I am one of those people you mentioned earlier, who transport homeless dogs from the shelters in the south to the northern states (in fact, I am leaving in about an hour to do that yet again, and that's week in and week out, year after year, and there is never an end to it, and even with that massive effort, we manage to spare lives of maybe one percent of these unwanted dogs. And you still insist on your "rights" to breed without interference or concern for pet overpopulation? You suggest education? Going to a high-kill shelter and assisting in gassing unwanted dogs may be a good reality check. I am not sure I would call it education. How about educating about pet overpopulation? How about educating in helping find homes for sheleter dogs and cats? How about educating about breeding just enough to preserve the breed lines until the overpopulation problem is well under control? It seems like you are in favor of promoting unfettered acess to profit maximizing by using our "property" the way we see fit? That property is living and breathing, and these rights come at a cost of millions of lives of unwanted dogs in shelters. Think about that next time you ask your vet for "help" in placing your surplus dogs.

Natalie Kramer March 7th, 2009 11:40:58 AM

Lisa, the limit law (3 dogs per house) that Bob Attleson was violating was put on the Littleton, CO books in 1978. I'm not saying it's a good law - I am not in favor of limit laws unless they also have a basis in preventing poor animal care. I've know many people who couldn't take decent care of 1 dog, and I've known people who've taken excellent care of 20+ so arbitrary numbers make no sense to me. However, whether or not Attleson had neighbors complaining (which it seems he did not), he managed to go afoul of the limit laws for years from what I've read (2+ hours of research), and while I certainly do not agree with what happened in his case, there seems to be a lot of one-sided info out there. Nancy cites that he had 9 dogs, and even though he had 2 houses, that would still put him over the limit by 3. I read that at various times, because he was also running a rescue, he had more dogs there. While there is a provision for 'transient' dogs (staying for less than 45 days), I read that the owner or person in possession of the dog(s) needs to notify the city. I don't know if he did or not. Again, I'm not defending the limit law, I'm, not condeming Bob Attleson, and I'm not condoning the methods used to make him come into compliance, I'm just saying that there is more to the story that I, at least, can't find out about.

And, Nancy, just telling me that there are commercial kennels near me doesn't tell me which ones are the ones you were saying such wonderful things about, that we'd all be impressed with seeing. As Lis says, just having a USDA license doesn't mean it's a good place.

KateH March 7th, 2009 12:03:21 PM

Natalie you sound burnt out, if you are not doing this transporting for a profit please stop. Obviously you are either not enjoying what you are doing or you are deriving the pleasure of it through the demonetization of anyone who you feel you can lay blame on for an animal's existence. That is a very sad place to be. In fact even if you are doing this at profit your attitude is shows that it is causing your psyche far to much damage to be worth the anxiety it is causing you. The cognitive dissonance transporting is causing you has you rationalizing in ways that are way off reality.

BTW although I doubt most of the animals you are transporting are pure bred unless they have been stolen by the shelter system which has been rampant at theft of animals through raids etc in recent years, I disagree that it is one's "civic duty" to spay and neuter. It is one's civic duty to maintain the breeds and the existence of dog's.

A.N. March 7th, 2009 01:07:24 PM

To add to that: Fortunatley being an American means that we have the liberty and personal freedom to have our own ideas of what is in the best interest of society so long as it does not harm other humans. If you are a volunterr or even if you are recieving pay, and this transporting is harming you by causing you to be angree please stop, there are others who will fill the bill. HSUS certainly rakes in enough money to have drivers thanking them for the pay which HSUS should be using that 200 million for. There is a great deal of the choir blaming the devil here. Without the animals there would be no transporting job, I am sure there are many people out of work who would be thankfull for such a job and it is more than likely that pay could and should come from it considering what is spent each spring to import dogs from off shore to the North Shore Animal Leage and many other shelters in the country. Seems there is a shortage of dogs particularly smaller younger ones and the shelters in large cities have been charging quite a bit for the adoption of them. Unfortunatley many obtained through theft and eronious charges for monetray gain. Any time I hear ofg animals confiscated and adopted out within a week or so i know that the animal confiscated was stollen and not in need of rehab, the purpose (money) has been very evident on many occasions.

A.N. March 7th, 2009 01:19:16 PM

A.N. I am not doing rescue transport for profit, and no one that I know does it for profit either. I wouldn't say I am burned out. I say that this is done week in and week out not because I am tired of doing it but to underscore the overwhelming extent of the problem of dog overpopulation. I am surprised you were confused about that. I actually enjoy doing what I do in part because I do it along with good and selfless people, and because I love dogs and feel good about saving them from gas chambers. We transport some purebred dogs, which are give ups at shelters. Breed rescue don't have room for all purebreds that are given up, abandoned, or a result of puppy mills or breeders unable to control their litters (they don't all turn to their vets for "help"). Most dogs we transport are mixbreeds and mutts; most are sweet, well-socialized dogs, and the majority are young. Your skills as a psychologist, madam, (or sir) leave some to be desired because you have just diagnosed me with psycological damage, and you don't have enough information to base such a diagnosis on. I am simply saying what you don't want to hear because it's not in your interest for what I am saying to be said, and for what you are doing to be exposed. Discrediting the messanger will not silence the message. And yes, those of us, who deal with the fallout of what irresponsible breeders are doing are angry and sad, which is not a psychological disorder but rather a logical human emotion.

Natalie Kramer March 7th, 2009 01:28:48 PM

On that note, are these laws coming into question because while HSUS is trying to eliminate pets they are also trying to make an enormous profit along the way? As are many shelters in the North East and Ca.

Add Seattle Animal Shelter (SAS) and the Helen Woodward Animal Center (San Diego area) to the burgeoning ranks of humane shelters across the nation that are swapping their historic role for headlines and fundraising opportunities. Shelters that formerly housed sick, old and homeless American pets are now importing dogs from foreign countries for adoption. SAS recently accepted three dogs from a Mexican shelter and Helen Woodward accepted 9 from Romania last month.

At first glance, the numbers involved in these two operations appear inconsequential, but when the numbers are multiplied by the number of shelters participating, and when the number of times each shelter takes part is factored in, the overall effect is not insignificant. The truth is, some shelters are operating today as de facto pet stores and if these small numbers are rationalized away as somehow acceptable because they are small, then this backdrop of questionable activity will be used incrementally to create an accepted statistical norm that includes imports as part of the local animal control equation.

http://www.naiatrust.org/resources/foreign_strays.htm

A.N. March 7th, 2009 01:33:49 PM

HARTFORD, Ct – There is a grim irony surrounding recent discussion of a task force to study a mandatory spay and neuter law for Connecticut.

The alleged reason for such a mandate is to cut down on the population of unwanted dogs and cats in animal shelters, and to reduce the necessity for euthanasia of animals that are not adopted.

 The irony is that Connecticut animal shelters are begging for dogs to adopt, and in fact are hauling in dogs from as far away as Georgia, Oklahoma and even Puerto Rico to meet the demand, an investigation by The American Sporting Dog Alliance shows. There are not enough unwanted dogs in Connecticut to go around because voluntary spaying and neutering has cut the number of adoptable puppies to a fraction of their former number, research at Tufts University has shown.

Moreover, ASDA has uncovered evidence that pet overpopulation is not the real issue. One of the most vocal leaders in the push to mandate the sterilization of dogs makes no bones about his real goal: the elimination of purebred dogs. This is a major platform of the most extreme animal rights groups, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

Connecticut Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) Executive Director Fred Acker defended his organization’s program of bringing in dogs from other states in a 2004 article reprinted on Petfinder.com.

"People will get the kind of dog they want, even if they have to go to a breeder for it," Acker said. "So why not save a dog from somewhere else, rather than breed another dog."

Acker said that the Connecticut SPCA goes on designer shopping trips to shelters in other states in order to bring the kind of dogs people want back to Connecticut. Popular breeds, such as Labrador retrievers, small breeds and puppies are high on the list because the demand far exceeds the supply in Connecticut, Acker said.

The Connecticut SPCA shelter charges people $295 to adopt a dog or puppy, which an article in USA Today said effectively places them in the pet store business.

Why aren’t there enough unwanted homegrown Connecticut dogs to meet the demand?

A study by the Tufts University says that many people, especially in the northeastern states, are voluntarily spaying and neutering their dogs. This has virtually eliminated unwanted puppies for adoption, and even older dogs of the more popular breeds, the study concluded. Most of the dogs that are not being adopted in the northeastern states are elderly, ill or of an unpopular breed, such as pit bulls. 

This vacuum of supply and demand has left a lot of empty kennel runs in Connecticut animal shelters. Rather than close down and claim credit for accomplishing their mission, the shelters are going elsewhere to find dogs to fill the vacancies – and meet the demand.

On a trip to Oklahoma, reported by KFOR News in Oklahoma City, Acker and two other people from Connecticut shelters took 31 dogs from the Oklahoma City shelter, and planned to pick up more dogs from shelters in Bethany and Moore, OK, and also from a group called Pets and People.

"This is going to make a lot of people happy,” Acker told KFOR. “The little dogs are few and far in Connecticut. The demand is great so we're just connecting the dots throughout the United States." Acker told the reporter that he planned to make a trip to Oklahoma every month to get a truckload of dogs.

But he’ll have to get back from Atlanta, GA, first. Acker’s website reported that one trip to Georgia required two vans, and that 20 dogs would be taken from a shelter there.

Another Connecticut animal shelter, the Danbury Animal Welfare Society, reportedly picked up six puppies and an adult dog from the Atlanta shelter.

"You've got small dogs and we don't," Acker told KFOR in Oklahoma. "We'll probably have homes for half of them before we get back…Every single small dog goes home with 20 back up applications easily."

The Connecticut SPCA website also details a program to “rescue” dogs caught in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina along the Gulf Coast. These dogs also are being used to meet the insatiable demand for adoptable dogs in the Northeast.

USA Today reported that 14,000 stray dogs from the streets of Puerto Rico were adopted in the United States over a seven-year period, and Connecticut got some of them.

In neighboring Massachusetts, the “underpopulation” of unwanted dogs is so severe that one shelter literally is scouring the globe for dogs to sell for adoption. The Northeast Animal Shelter told USA Today that it imports 800 dogs a year from the South and 200 from Puerto Rico. This shelter goes as far as Taiwan and Mainland China to come up with enough dogs to meet the demand.

The situation is similar on Long Island, NY, which reportedly brings in dogs from several distant states, and then hauls them to Connecticut for adoption in special vans.

The Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut groups participate in two networks to import dogs from elsewhere. The first is called the “Puppies Across America Program,” which focuses on southern and midwestern states. The second is called “Save a Sato,” which brings in stray dogs from Puerto Rico. Sato is the Spanish word for a stray dog.

A similar situation exists across the continent in California, which also is considering mandatory spay and neuter legislation. A reported 10,000 dogs a year are brought to California from Mexico to meet the demand that animal shelters in that state can’t fulfill.

Data from the California Veterinary Public Health Section of the state Health Department shows that there has been a 43-percent decline in the number of dogs euthanized in animal shelters over five years, and a 75-percent decline since the mid-1970’s. Connecticut does not publish similar data.

http://eaglerock814.bravejournal.com/entry/26891

A.N. March 7th, 2009 02:02:29 PM

This is such a sad & sorry situation, I get upset from all angles.

AN: yes, indeed, I suspect you are all too right about the NE area shelters running almost as pet shops, importing the adoptables from southern states. Not to long ago, I went to an outdoor rescue/shelter fundraiser.Well, I saw at least 80% purebreds. Also, some dogs were pointed out to me as the "southern imports"....hmmm, I thought. Asked the shelter rep what was happening with all the NH and local pets being brought in, from the devastating economy? Got NO ANSWER...dead silence.

I feel that it should be pointed out that NH has had a long-standing s/n fund supported by individual dog license fees. And a NEW law passed that pets brought into NH must be neutered before adopted!!! Hmmmm, again. Means big$$$$ for who?? Yep.

On a side thread, I noticed that a bill to license "horses" got shot down fast & furious, recently. Why? Reasons cited was that the $25 individual fee was "too much hardship"! WHAT??? I could be way off base, but doesn't a horse cost a LOT to keep? $25 is the HARDSHIP? Oh sure, forget the cats, ferrets, horses, but gosh darn, get those DOG PEOPLE!

I think Stef has it right, there wouldn't be all this, if ALL states had a low cost s/n program in place!

I feel just like my Dad, when the cigarette tax goes up (another $8 this week)....punish the old & poor smokers!

BTW, on my street? The 'horse' barns would drive one wild with jealousy. But "I" have to figure out how to comply & "jump thru hoops" to license my 3 elderly dogs, and hopefully obtain a rabies waiver...yeah, me---

ps. any ACVIM's out there to volunteer for a co-signature to my vet?? please let me know. Barbara A. Albright/walnuthl@gsinet.net

Pocket's Story from NH March 7th, 2009 02:33:10 PM

And another thing, and please don't think I'm heartless, because I DO care very much about rescue placements. Happened to talk to a customer that adopted a puppy from one of the southern states that died within 5 days.

Yes, I felt very badly for her & her kids. But all I could think about is "what clinic" did these pups get treated at? Certainly, I am not claiming "germ-free" NH, but as an owner with "elderly seniors", communicable disease is the last thing they/I need to risk.

I just can't even imagine the stress of the animals at these "overloaded" shelters (according to newspaper reports), let alone the human stress.

Barb. A.

Pocket's Story from NH March 7th, 2009 02:46:35 PM

Cognitive Dissonance is not a psychological disorder but something that occurs to everyone when tension comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time. A person might experience cognitive dissonance if they purchase a car which they decided before hand would be reliable and discovered it to be a lemon. Similarly a person might experience cognitive dissonance if they are doing something in order to reach an end to the need of that service only to find that there will never be an end. Obviously if dogs are being imported from not only the south but foreign countries no matter what laws are here in the US there will never be an end. Just as there will never be an end to orphaned children, divorced or widowed adults etc. I really do not think there is a human on the planet that has not at one time or another experienced a level of cognitive dissonance. The question is how we resolve it, as dissonance creates a need for resolution just as hunger or sleep deprivation does, with a high level of unresolved dissonance the individual is anguished.

The three basic ways of dealing with dissonance are:

    *  Change our behavior.

    * Justify our behavior by changing the conflicting cognition.

    * Justify our behavior by adding new cognitions.

The latter one is rationalization, to add new cognitions (thoughts or beliefs). The danger in using this mechanism is that those cognitions (beliefs) may not be grounded in reality or fact but beliefs that alleviate anger or anxiety. Blaming is one such mechanism, not a disorder a survival mechanism and not always unhealthy but it can be unhealthy if it fosters more anger.

A.N. March 7th, 2009 03:12:06 PM

What I do not understand in all of this is why we allow ourselves to give preference to a certain breed of dog or cat. All of our media outlets and the lifestyle they promote justify having an animal as a social commodity, therefore removing any kind of value to the animal's life. Breeders hurry to satisfy this overinflated demand, leaving behind a mass of unwanted animals bearing the trend of yesterday's lifestyle. This should not have to happen. Regulation needs to occur in this market. I am talking about a life, however in keeping the breeders mentality of an animal as an object, regulation occurs in every other type of market. Farmers are not allowed to produce what they want, in the quantities they want just to satisfy demand. If breeders lack this basic human emotion to view an animal as a life rather than as a commodity, they should subscribe to this philosophy of regulation. To regulate what to breed and how many to breed is essential in preventing overpopulation. This is a problem which can be easily resolved with such an approach. It is also essential to solve the following problem as well:  to view and treat an animal as a life and not as a comodity.

Amine S. March 7th, 2009 04:43:35 PM

I never understood how humans could view animals as commodities.  The only reasonable explanation that I have for this is that you've never owned a pet. The crazy ones are the ones that have pets and still decide to sell them as commodities. Having a pet, how can you look into the eyes of another dog or cat, who so unconditionally and wholeheartedly loves and trusts you and give them away for anyone to do what they want with. For what? For money? To pay the mortgage? I hate that argument. You get educated. Those people sicken me.

Alex G. March 7th, 2009 05:20:14 PM

A.N. Thank you for your concern about my emotional well-being. However, your theory of cognitive dissonance is incorrect for the simple reason that I don't hold conflicting thoughts. My thoughts are plain and straightforward. I don't have a problem, as you theorize, with "importing" dogs from places where they are unwanted to places where there is a demand for them. No matter how you turn it on its head or what spin you put on it, I am at peace with what I do and the activities I am engaged in, at least in this area. You are clearly worried about what I am saying, hence the trouble you went to in writing the mini-dissertation you wrote about how there is no problem of pet overpopulation, and how breeders don't contribute to it at all. You remind me of the tabacco industry, which claims that smoking has never been scientifically linked to cancer. The difference is that even the said industry doesn't attempt to discredit those who claim that there is such a link by presenting convoluted arguments of their emotional instability. Luckily, most people are able to see through the rhetoric and the defensive posture. Very few people have doubts about your contribution to pet overpopulation and tabacco's industry contribution to cancer. And like on the said industry, regulation is being slapped on you because counting on your sence of civic duty or conscience is not helpful. Your hatered of people who rescue dogs is palpable, which does not give your cause any more credence. You are totally panicked by this regulation because your old rug is being pulled from under your feet. (I am not a bad pseudo-psychologist either, ain't I? More easily understandable than you are.) The regulation is there. If not today where you are, then soon. It's advancing, despite your objections. Live with it. I hope this scary proposition doesn't give you cognitive dissonance.

Natalie Kramer March 7th, 2009 08:41:08 PM

A.N. Thank you for your concern about my emotional well-being. However, your theory of cognitive dissonance is incorrect for the simple reason that I don't hold conflicting thoughts. My thoughts are plain and straightforward. I don't have a problem, as you theorize, with "importing" dogs from places where they are unwanted to places where there is a demand for them. No matter how you turn it on its head or what spin you put on it, I am at peace with what I do and the activities I am engaged in, at least in this area. You are clearly worried about what I am saying, hence the trouble you went to in writing the mini-dissertation you wrote about how there is no problem of pet overpopulation, and how breeders don't contribute to it at all. You remind me of the tabacco industry, which claims that smoking has never been scientifically linked to cancer. The difference is that even the said industry doesn't attempt to discredit those who claim that there is such a link by presenting convoluted arguments of their emotional instability. Luckily, most people are able to see through the rhetoric and the defensive posture. Very few people have doubts about your contribution to pet overpopulation and tabacco's industry contribution to cancer. And like on the said industry, regulation is being slapped on you because counting on your sense of civic duty or conscience is not helpful. Your hatered of people who rescue dogs is palpable, which does not give your cause any more credence. You are totally panicked by this regulation because your old rug is being pulled from under your feet. (I am not a bad pseudo-psychologist either, ain't I? More easily understandable than you are.) The regulation is there. If not today where you are, then soon. It's advancing, despite your objections. Live with it. I hope this scary proposition doesn't give you cognitive dissonance.

Natalie Kramer March 7th, 2009 08:43:55 PM

Whoops, sorry about the double posting.

Natalie Kramer March 7th, 2009 08:44:52 PM

Natalie, It's late so this will be short. Just for your information since you seemed to have a problem with what I said. I take reservations for my pups before I breed my dogs. Every now and then a pup just doesn't seem to catch interest. I have small dogs and small litters. Usually 2-5 in a litter. I breed females to get as close as I can to the number reserved. Just so you know, the last 2 years I sold 14 puppies a year and none are in shelters because I screen buyers before I accept reservations and deposits. Please don't make assumptions. sometimes when I breed, I may come up a bit short on pups and sometimes a few more than I had reservations for. Usually all the pups sell, but now and then I have a male pup who just isn't a color that appeals to most people. Would you rather instead of placing him the way I do, that I have him euthanized so a shelter dog might get the home I sent him to instead? And yes, sometimes people do get in over their heads and helping them seems to be a more humane thing to do than watching them dig themselves in deeper. It's usually older people who do it. I don't know why, just what I've observed. In Sharon Roberts' case a lot of people came up after the raid and said they had watched for years..YEARS..as her kennel got larger and larger, but they sat back and did nothing about it. She said she knew things had gotten out of hand and she had begun having dogs castrated and females neutered and was placing them in homes. The community could have lent a hand and offered to help find homes or to take some themselves. Lord knows when they were confiscated EVERYONE suddenly wanted one. Where were they before it got to that point and why suddenly yank out every dog she own with no warning? People are so worried about animal cruelty, they don't stop to think what they did to a 72 year old woman! As far as whether someone buying a pup is going to keep a shelter dog from finding a home. That is rhetoric. People are going to make the choice of whether they want to buy from a breeder or get a shelter dog. That's because we live in a coultry where that choice is still allowed. When people buy purebreds, they do it because they want a dog they know the history on, can meet the parents, and were bred for specific abilities and they don't usually get that with shelter dogs. That doesn't mean shelter dogs are bad, they just aren't everyone's choice.

Nancy March 7th, 2009 10:52:46 PM

Reading through AN's post of shelter statistics I have to wonder how many of the dogs and puppies of popular breeds being imported to meet nothern demands came from the kennels raided in the south who also happened to be small popular breeds who are ready for new homes within a week or less? Not ONE of you who are blaming breeders for filling shelters have even commented about the number of dogs annually imported to shelters from other countries. I had asked the question previously about WHY shelters are importing from other countries if shelters are so terribly over-crowded. Stefani answered why they were being imported from southern states, but NO ONE has yet answered WHY they are being imported from other countries to meet demands. If they are in such demand that import is required, then why would any need euthanized unless they are aggressive, old, or sick? If there is such a demand for these dogs that require importing into shelters from other countries (I believe the articles I've read online gave numbers in the range of 300,000 annually), how can breeders be responsible for a pet over-population? Maybe these questions and statistics are the ones we should be sending to our legislators who are being asked to regulate breeders. Maybe they should be investigating and regulating the shelter system a little more closely instead. Just maybe shelter workers aren't quite as selfless as they claim.

Nancy March 7th, 2009 11:35:31 PM

Nancy, shelters <i>are</i> badly over-crowded--generally, in the south and the midwest. And they're shipping in dogs from other states--generally, in the northeast and the northwest. There are <i>huge</i> regional differences, and everyone seems to think that the situation prevailing at their local shelter is The Way It Is Everywhere.

Dogs being shipped from Puero Rico to the mainland US are not being "imported" from "another country." They're being moved from one part of the United States of America to another part of the United States of America, the same as dogs being moved from South Carolina to New York.

I'm having difficulty reading "A.N."'s  vast masses of text with no paragraph breaks, but I haven't blamed "breeders" for the overcrowding in shelters, where it exists. I've blamed <i>large-scale commercial breeders</i> for the 25% overall of purebred dogs that are in shelters. Although it must be said that they're also responsible for the "designer breed" mixes in shelters, too.

Some parts of the country see significantly higher percentages of purebred dogs in shelters because those areas also have large concentrations of puppy mills (large-scale commercial breeders) and the more icky varieties of backyard breeders--both groups are not breeding for health or temperament, are not screening buyers for suitability, and don't have either spay-neuter clauses or take-back clauses, with the result that these dogs are more likely to be bred, accidentally or not, and are more likely to be dumped in shelters when their owners either discover they can't cope with the dog they bought, or experience serious economic or health problems and genuinely can't provide for the dog anymore. (If I ever can't care for my dog anymore, and my sister can't take her, she goes back to her breeder, who knows her, loves her, and still owns both her mom and her littermate. That's a huge extra level of security that dogs from your "wonderful" USDA-licensed breeders don't have.)

But a big part of the reason that shelters are over-crowded and have high euthanasia rates lies with "traditional" shelter management practices, which too often don't even make it easy for people who might adopt to find out that they really have genuinely adoptable dogs, dogs with no problems except that their owners died or got sick or lost their homes, or dogs with entirely correctable behavior problems such as lack of potty training. The shelters have no evening or weekend hours, or are located in places that either are or seem dangerous to go, or they are dark, depressing, discouraging places to even walk into. Or they won't do offsite adoption events or adopt dogs out of state. Or all of the above.

The shelters that are actually moving or allowing their dogs to be moved from areas where that type of dog is going to have a hard time getting adopted to places where there is a demand and they will be easily adopted, are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Amine S. said: What I do not understand in all of this is why we allow ourselves to give preference to a certain breed of dog or cat.

My sister wanted a dog who could be a running partner for her; she got a Lab. I am a decade older, I have asthma, arthritis, and a bad knee. I wanted a dog to be a walking companion. And that I could pick up and carry when necessary, or just hold on my lap and cuddle. And who would be good with my two cats. I got a Chinese Crested Powderpuff. (I prefer doing hair care to doing skin care.) One of my two cats, and both of my sister's, are Maine Coons--a Coon is a big armful of cat, highly social, and needs a fair amount of grooming. We both enjoy that. My mother's cat is a now-elderly Siamese, vocal and affectionate with her, tolerant but largely indifferent towards visitors, whose grooming needs are almost, not quite, but almost, limited to my sister or I going by periodically to clip her claws. That's what my mother needs and wants in a cat.

And that is why we "allow ourselves to give preference to a certain breed of dog or cat": because people are different, with different personalities, preferences, and lifestyles, and they need different traits in their pets. Someone who wants a pug will not find a pit bull an adequate substitute--and vice versa. This is why different breeds exist in the first place--because people need different things in their dogs.

Both commercial breeders and the animal rights extremists find it worthwhile to blur the differences between small-scale responsible breeders, breeders with larger working or sporting kennels, and puppy millers excuse me "USDA-licensed commmercial breeders", but the differences are huge, and it's only the large-scale commercial breeders that are bad for dogs and bad for people by virtue of what they are, rather than based on the good or bad judgment of people involved. Small-scale breeders can be good or bad, large sporting or working kennels can be well-run or badly-run, but large-scale commercial breeders, <i>especially</i> if they are USDA licensed and complying with standards that <i>forbid</i> giving the puppies a home-like environment, are intrinsically bad environments for raising animals to be human household companions, no matter how clean and well-maintained they are and no matter how much vet care the pups get.

I should stop reading this thread; it's just annoying me. :(

Lis March 8th, 2009 04:15:51 AM

Nancy, I absolutely wouldn't want the pup you bred euthanized, under any circumstances. I wouldn't want any pup euthanized! I would want him not to have been conceived, however, if he is going to take the place of a dog, who will be euthanized because he took that place. It seems that at the scale you are breeding, you personally are not contributing huge numbers to the problem. However, the number of your surplus pups, multiplied by the number of people who "get in over their heads" and the extent to which people other than you get "in over their heads..." well, do the math, even if in theory. There is no excuse for "getting in over their heads," whatever the age. When lives are at stake, and actions of people have the potential to contribute to the problem, utmost caution should be exercised, and "help" should be sought before things get out of hand. I believe Lis addressed your question of why breeders are blamed for dogs being in shelters. She also explained that moving unwanted dogs from areas where there no homes for them to areas where there are homes for them contributes to the solution, no matter how much "sophisticated" arguments to the contrary are presented. I don't have the exact statistics, but Lis' reasoning seems about right. Shelters and their management are absolutely in part to blame for the high euthansia rates, and much work is needed in that area as well. I could never work at a shelter. Many rescue groups have serious issues too. For example, some don't have good strategies for rasing funds. Others have poor "marketing" abilities. By marketing I mean getting the word out about their dogs and cats, and getting the right sponsors or promoters involved. Yet others have such bizarre adoption standards that the majority of their applications from perfectly reasonable people are denied. So, yes, there are problems on all the fronts, and people are needed to solve them. Not all rescue volunteers are extremists, Nancy. People volunteer because they love dogs and want to see them go to good homes to be family pets, instead of being euthanized. Euthansia, by the way, in many non-urban shelters is not that humane either, as I mentioned before. When we mention these things to you, it is not because we are extremists and don't want to stop and think what breeding legislation is doing to you, an older lady. It is because you, regardless of your age, are a human being, who can advocate for her own rights and make rational, informed decisions. You use the internet; you are familiar with the legislative process. You can certainly take care of yourself, at least to a large extent. Dogs in shelters cannot. Believe me, if you were my neighbor, I would do my best to help you, as I do with my next door neighbor, an elderly gentleman; I help him rake leaves, clear snow, and take care of his cat, when needed. People who are interested in reducing euthanasia in dogs are not out to make older people suffer. We actually advocate on behalf of all those who may need our help, whether our work is focused on one particular segment of that group or another. Best of luck to you. And please try to look at the issue objectively, not only from your own unique prespective.

Natalie Kramer March 8th, 2009 05:37:45 AM

As usual, Lis, love your post. On shelter management practices: I would also add that some shelters dampen their adoption statistics by being **too picky**. When I went on a tour of the Richmond VA shelter, the director was explaining how they do try to ensure a good home for the animals, but not a PERFECT home. She talked for a while about how some shelters set the bar intimidatingly high for adopters. On PETA, HSUS, and animal rights: I do not agree with everything PETA says/does nor do I share Patricia Newkirk's view of a petless world. I'm not an abolitionist. But I truly appreciate much of their work. I believe that HSUS is a more moderate organization. Yes, there are extreme points of view, including Gary Francione, who are abolitionist and believe that "animal liberation" includes the abolition of keeping domestic "pets." I don't share that view either. But that fact that I don't share that view DOES NOT MEAN that I demonize the entire movement.

For example -- banning circuses? Absolutely! That NEEDS to be done.

We humans focus too much on our "rights" with respect to animals and not enough on our "responsibilities." If there is any cosmic reason for the attributes that allow us to have "dominion" over the world, surely we are meant to be SERVANTS, not USURPERS.

And if man's rights are, in whole or part, taken to exist "a priori," -- as in "God given," or "endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights" -- then surely, other living beings too, have rights "a priori." If we get our rights via natural inheritance and they are simply codified in law, then therefore, other living beings ought to have rights recognized, as they too surely have rights via natural inheritance or "a priori."

Now, laws are a construct made of humans by humans for humans. However, again, if the root of our philosophy is that basic rights are divinely given or exist a priori, then I believe other beings, too, should have some basic rights recognized.

Although I am not an "animal rightist" in the sense most of you mean, yes I do believe in animal rights. Just by being alive, being sentient feeling beings who share this planet with us, they have rights. We just pretend they don't. We shoud figure out a way to reasonably codify those rights. The idea that they are just here to serve our pleasures, be our property, meet our needs whatever they may be, is repugnant, and frankly, disrespectful of the beautiful world we are fortunate enough to live in.

Stefani March 8th, 2009 06:05:10 AM

I believe Lis addressed your question of why breeders are blamed for dogs being in shelters.

Just to clarify, what I said was:

I'm having difficulty reading "A.N."'s  vast masses of text with no paragraph breaks, but I haven't blamed "breeders" for the overcrowding in shelters, where it exists. I've blamed <i>large-scale commercial breeders</i> for the 25% overall of purebred dogs that are in shelters. Although it must be said that they're also responsible for the "designer breed" mixes in shelters, too.

I'm not blaming "breeders" for dogs in shelters, and don't wish to be misrepresented that way. I'm blaming certain categories of breeders for most of the purebred and obvious "designer mix" dogs in shelters, who are a minority of the dogs there overall, although a much larger percentage in certain areas of the country.

From the way Nancy is describing her breeding practices to us, she sounds like not what I would consider a really responsible breeder (3-5 litters a year, as I do the math? Really? Got verifiable health screening on all those bitches, Nancy? And the stud dogs too?), but if she has spay/neuter clauses and return clauses in her contract, she's not contributing to dogs being in shelters. (And if not, she is contributing to dogs being in shelters, no matter what she thinks, and no matter that none of the pups she personally has bred has wound up in a shelter.)

The way to reduce the numbers of animals in shelters is not by shutting down or harassing responsible (or reasonably responsible) breeders. It's low-cost spay/neuter programs, trap-neuter-release programs for feral cats, and making shelters inviting and available places to go to find a pet to adopt. It's making the pets visibl on Petfinder, it's marketing those available pets as the good pets most of them are. It's lifting limit laws and only going after people when they have more pets than they can handle, not more pets than someone thinks, in the abstract, the "average" less-responsible person can handle. It's shelters offering training and advice when someone is having the kind of solvable behavior problems with their pet that too often lead to adolescent dogs being surrendered. It's shelters not having the attitude that because there are bad individuals who abuse their animals or surrender them for frivolous reasons, the problem is the Bad Public that can't really be trusted with animals.

But little though Nancy likes the idea, those USDA-licensed large-scale commercial breeders are a significant and growing part of the problem, too. And at least for now, PETA and other animal-rights groups are their allies, not their enemies, because it's easier to target the small-scale, responsible breeders who are not very organized and not well-funded. If they succeeded in that, they'd then turn on each other--but too late to save the breeds we love.

Lis March 8th, 2009 06:35:13 AM

My 'unique perspective' derives from reading post ofter post by people stating they are shelter workers blaming breeders as a whole for filling shelters. For many years, I had always advocated for people to consider shelter animals when I didn't feel they were really looking for a puppy by the information they gave me. I stopped doing that after constantly hearing from AR groups, and hearing it echoed by shelter worker after shelter worker, "Every time you buy from a breeder a shelter dog dies". I'm really glad that you don't see all breeders as 'puppy mills', but from all appearances, you are in a small minority of shelter advocates. I do still refer people to breed rescues when I see it as more viable than a pup, but unless and until we can all work together for a common goal, no longer to shelters. I don't believe AN purposely didn't leave breaks. When I type in here, I leave 2 lines between paragraphs, but when it posts, it comes out as one long paragraph. It's a shame you didn't read it because it had good information from actual studies. Aside from the dogs from Puerto Rico, I'm pretty sure Mexico, China, and Taiwan are not part of the U.S. So I have to ask again where the need comes from to import from these countries to U.S. shelters if over-population is a problem. One of the biggest problems I see with any of these conversations is when I say if the USDA inspectors aren't doing their jobs during inspections they should be called to task over it made to do what they are paid for, I'm told they are a large machination. That isn't an answer, it's an excuse to allow them to continue not doing their jobs. AWA contains good welfare laws, but any law is only as good as the enforcment behind it.

Nancy March 8th, 2009 06:47:11 AM

I am rather tiered this morning and because I am not getting my usual 250 per hr when I post to this thread, I am not promising any immediate response. Although I would like to note that I see reinforcements have been brought in. Is this the Alex G who reviews Vegan restaurants? Interesting, I wonder who it is that "does not have such connections" or which posts may have gotten the attention of such extremists.

In any event, Stefani do you eat or use any animal products?

If you do, can you please elaborate on why you think circuses should be banned? I am not even convinced that all animals in circuses are not actually enjoying their lives. I believe many particularly the dogs and horses do enjoy performing and the attention they have received while learning to perform.

One cannot say on one hand that dogs need individual attention and deny that circus animals get an enormous amount of attention in order to learn their roles in given acts.

I'll may get back to the comment someone made on paying mortgages at some other time. But briefly this morning the media has noted that 1,200 individuals are living in tent camps in California because of foreclosures. To bad they didn't pay their mortgages. To bad the tax payer may be footing the bill with bailouts.  We will all be saying it was to bad if the Chinese decide to collect their debt in something of actual value rather than meaningless dollars printed by the US and make that demand at  gun point.

BTW Ingrid have a new clone or something named Patricia?

A.N. March 8th, 2009 06:50:17 AM

Lis, I didn't mean to imply that you blamed all breeders for the problems of pet overpopulation. I said I don't know much about the numbers, by type of breeder. But some breeders (whatever the type) do contribute to the problem, as you acknowledge, while some of them (on this blog) claim that none do, and the shelters are to blame, and you seemed to have addressed that argument. I don't blame all breeders either. Breeding should certainly be maintained in required quantities to perpetuate the breeds. I don't think any reasonable person would argue with that. The problem is out of control breeding that exceeds demand, contributing to the overpopulation. Breeding by "responsible" breeders (and I know some of those who do so voluntarily) could also be temporarily curtailed to help empty the shelters and put in place reasonable spay/neuter regulations for dogs of non-breeding quality, as much overpopulation is due to irresponsible pet owners, who are not breeders, don't intend to breed but end up with unwated litters (and multiple ones) as an oops factor. On the topic of types of pets people want: I am with Stefani and Amine S. on this one. Many people are too concerned about what (designer) pet would fit their lifestyle. All too often, it's the appearance that drives the choice. Sometimes, it's the image or prestige. When I volunteered with a local rescue, a woman actually requested a dog of a certain color to "match the couch." Your point that a Pit Bull is not a substitute for a Pug and vice-versa is well taken. However, a small Pug/Chi mix, or a small Yorki/Beagle mix from a shelter may well be a good substitute for a purebred Pug with respect to the owner's ability to care for that dog and to the dog's ability to be a suitable pet for that owner. As for cats, I love Maine Coons too. In the past 15 years, I had four Maine-Coon look-alikes (in successive pairs). All between 15 and 20 pounds, all armfull of cats, all sweet, all with personalilities, all big purrers, some extreme hooligans. Love them to pieces (and I am a dog person). All came from the local shelter. They are not a substitue for a Siamese, but they can be a substitue for a Maine Coon. So when Stefani says "we focus too much on our "rights" with respect to animals and not enough on our responsibilities," I am with her. Yes, an elderly frail couple should not get a three-year-old Pit mix from the shelter, but in the name of kindness, they could consider a small mutt instead of a Pug.

Natalie Kramer March 8th, 2009 07:17:28 AM

Nancy, there is a great variety of human types working in shelters, just as there is a variety of human types who breed dogs. This goes for any type of professional/business group of people. You can't consider all shelter workers as being hostile to all breeders, or all shelter workers as enemies. Breed rescues have their share of unreasonable people, as all rescues and shelters do. And just because shelter workers may be unreasonably harsh on breeders without regard to the type of their operation, doesn't mean that you shouldn't refer people to shelters to adopt if your puppy is not right for them. You are referring people to shelters for the benefit of dogs, not humans. Adversarial relationships between groups of people should not end up penalizing dogs.

Natalie Kramer March 8th, 2009 07:33:44 AM

Breeding by "responsible" breeders (and I know some of those who do so voluntarily) could also be temporarily curtailed to help empty the shelters and put in place reasonable spay/neuter regulations for dogs of non-breeding quality, as much overpopulation is due to irresponsible pet owners, who are not breeders, don't intend to breed but end up with unwated litters (and multiple ones) as an oops factor.

No, sorry, curtailing breeding by responsible breeders won't have that effect. Responsible breeders breed at most one or two litters a year, and don't necessarily breed every year. They breed when they have both a specific reason to breed, and enough homes for slightly more than the expected number of puppies. They already sell their puppies on spay/neuter contracts, or send them to their new homse already speutered. They already take back any dog of theirs that the buyer for any reason can't keep, and that includes reclaiming it from a shelter if it gets dumped there and they find out.

And if you lose a generation of well-bred dogs, you lose something important.

How about, instead, we concentrate on promoting low-cost spay/neuter programs, advertisng the presence of good, adoptable pets in shelters, and going after the puppy millers and the worst of the backyard breeders? What would be wrong with that plan?

Your point that a Pit Bull is not a substitute for a Pug and vice-versa is well taken. However, a small Pug/Chi mix, or a small Yorki/Beagle mix from a shelter may well be a good substitute for a purebred Pug with respect to the owner's ability to care for that dog and to the dog's ability to be a suitable pet for that owner.

Now, this is part of what I meant about people assuming that the situation at their local shelter is The Situation Everywhere In The Country. It was shocking to me to find out how many cute, adoptable, little dogs are languishing in shelters in the southern states. Here in New England--well, let's just say it's not like that. When I was looking for a dog, the onlly small dogs of the right general type that were available in an even vaguely local shelter were two twelve-year-old bichons with managable but significant health problems, who had to be adopted as a pair. This was not a good match for what I needed in a pet; I was looking for an adult but still young walking companion that I could expect to spend quite a few years with. More recently, I'm kind of casually looking (not yet ready to kick the search into high gear) for a second dog to be a buddy for my current dog. Yesterday, at the vet's when I went in to pick up food for my cats, I was chatting with a shelter volunteer who mentioned that they'd just gotten in the day before  a Chinese Crested--she hadn't seen him yet, but he was on the intake list. And then one of the vet techs spoke up, and asked if this was "the Chinese Crested that came in with a beagle." Yes, it was. They had been adopted, and the new owner had called the vet hospital to schedule their first appointment. (Yes, they were adopted together. After being in the shelter barely long enough to be processed in and made available. They never even made it onto the website.)

In the northeast, it's not easy to adopt a small dog from a shelter unless there's been a recent puppy mill bust in the more northerly parts of the southeast, and some of the rescued dogs get sent to shelters up here to give them a better chance.

As for cats, I love Maine Coons too. In the past 15 years, I had four Maine-Coon look-alikes (in successive pairs). All between 15 and 20 pounds, all armfull of cats, all sweet, all with personalilities, all big purrers, some extreme hooligans. Love them to pieces (and I am a dog person). All came from the local shelter. They are not a substitue for a Siamese, but they can be a substitue for a Maine Coon.

And yet, when my sister went looking for a Coon two years ago, and thought she would adopt from a shelter, she found that there were really very few available, and they were tough to adopt into households that had a dog--even if that dog was already living with a cat. (At that time, my mother and her Siamese were living with my sister. They subsequently moved out into senior housing, for greater quiet.) So my sister wound up calling the same breeder I went to, when I was looking for a Maine Coon, and found that there just weren't enough available in shelters for me to find one who was really a good match for my existing household.

The dogs available for adoption here are mostly adolescent Lab mixes or pit mixes, or else they are older animals whose owners died or who have been forced to surrender them for economic reasons. These are dogs that are genuinely harder to adopt out, dogs that are just not suited to a lot of the people looking to adopt. People need to be actively encouraged to look in shelters and rescues and seriously consider adoption, but not everyone is going to find the right pet in a shelter. And shutting down the responsible breeders, the good sources of the pets that they should have, will not cause someone who wants a small housepet to suddenly become a suitable owner for whatever happens to be most common in their local shelter. You'd actually push more people to buying from pet stores or directly from puppy mills, believing what the miller tells them because they want a dog that actually meets their needs, rather than a project or a hairshirt.

I could go to my local shelter and adopt a Lab mix or pit mix today. I'll wait many, many months for a really suitable dog to become available there--or else, I'll call my current dog's breeder, and tell her that I'm looking for a retired dog  that would be a good companion for her. I might still wait a bit, but I'll also know what it's possible to know about the genetic background of that dog, and how he or she was raised and socialized. That's no small benefit.

I've had shelter dogs in the past, and they were great pets, but that was when I was younger and healthier, and could give a bigger, more energetic dog the exercise it needed and enjoy doing so. One of my two cats now is a shelter cat, as have previous cats been. I'm all in favor of adopting. I'm not in favor of pretending that targeting responsible breeders is the way to get people to adopt, or that everybody could find the right pet in their local shelter if only they were willing to try.

Lis March 8th, 2009 08:23:38 AM

Lis, the difference of opinion is likely to be due to the differences in definitions. I didn't realize that the definition of a responsible breeder (is it a common definition, or your own?) is the one who produces one or two litters a year or every two years. I believed that there are larger scale commercial operations that are still responsible, at least in the way they care for their animals' health and well-being. I didn't mean curtailing the litters of those who take it upon themselves to curtail them and breed very judiciously, possibly just for shows or some other such purpose. I admit I am not too familiar with types of breeding operations. And reasonable spay/neuter laws, low cost services (provided they are safe), and going after irresponsible breeders and puppy millers sounds like a good plan. I will say again that irresponsible pet owners, who don't intend to breed but do because their dogs are intact and allowed to roam, are a huge problem too. If you live in an area where this is not a big problem, you may not fully appreciate the extent of it, but many shelters fill up and are forced to euthanize because of that, whether or not there are puppy mills in the area. As for small dogs not being available in your area, this is why we drive so many of these dogs from the shelters in the south. If there isn't a small dog (or other dog to fit a specific need) in your local shelter, a local rescue that receives dogs from the southern shelters can be contacted. They will likely have a dog available for adoption soon (within a few weeks), and transport can even be arranged to get the dog close to where you live. Just yesterday I transported a litter of pups along with their mom, who is a small Beagle/Terrier looking thing, very sweet. So there are creative solutions, and a multi-prong approach is needed to address this dreadful problem.

Natalie Kramer March 8th, 2009 08:40:37 AM

My apologies that I couldn't grasp everybody's sentences without paragraph breaks. A paragraph can be made by putting a p between so everyone can follow it.

This problem has become next to bizarre, low cost s/n programs should be the utmost priority in these other states. People around here are happy about it & take full advantage of it. Pet-owner/adopters/or purchasers do not want (in general) to proliferate more.

Importing all these dogs does seem to make the argument of "shortages", but it shouldn't hold up "today" if our own local shelters are crying of "swelling overflows", due to the economy.

From the scuttlebutt, "show breeders" have cut down their breeding due to lack of "demand" for pet pups.

Natalie, I note your last line. Isn't something wrong with a typical "pet-owner" relinquishing BOTH the mother and her pups? Something is askew here, almost like the canine population has gone similar to the "feral cat" TNR?

Barbara A./NH

Pocket's Story from NH March 8th, 2009 09:41:21 AM

It didn't work again, < this is what it should be between >, the less than and greater than symbol.

Pocket's Story from NH March 8th, 2009 09:43:08 AM

I've said this before on a previous blog, something does not "smell right", just as when cooperation between shelters and rescue groups mysteriously declined in the mid-late 90's. It used to be that the shelters immediately called the pure-bred rescue foster care, to make space for the local mixed-breds.

With home foreclosures & unemployment at all time highs, I'm having difficulty believing a huge "demand" up here in the North East.

Barb A./NH

Pocket's Story from NH March 8th, 2009 10:03:43 AM

Lis, the difference of opinion is likely to be due to the differences in definitions. I didn't realize that the definition of a responsible breeder (is it a common definition, or your own?) is the one who produces one or two litters a year or every two years. I believed that there are larger scale commercial operations that are still responsible, at least in the way they care for their animals' health and well-being.

Natalie, the essential piece of the definition of a responsible breeder is a breeder who takes responsibility for  the life of every single puppy they breed, for the life of that dog. My dog, and my sister's dog, have guaranteed homes if ever we become unable to keep them. My dog, in fact, was already returned to her breeder once, by her original buyer. She didn't pan out as a show dog, and was returned. The breeder returned her purchase price to the dissatisfied buyer, and the placed her with me as a pet, on a spay/neuter contract. I was charged a nominal amount to make it a legal contract. We keep in touch and I provide pictures regularly--one of the clauses in the contract.

This is in addition to the genetic screening and temperament screening on the parents prior to breeding, the showing necessary to champion the dogs before they were bred, etc. (Conformation showing isn't a necessary part of being a responsible breeder, but competing or working your dogs at something is, so that the judgment on what is and isn't a "wonderful dog" is not made solely by an owner who loves the particular dogs.)

Breeders who breed this way, over the course of thirty years, may have one or two dogs of their breeding whose buyers they lost contact with and whose fate they don't know. One breeder I'm acquainted with had a buyer "disappear" and started looking for the dog, including searching online ad sites. After more than four years, she found a listing for a dog being rehomed for whom the pictures and the available info matched. She made contact with the advertiser, and found that this was the fourth owner the poor dog had had, and that she had  rescued him from awful conditions (long story, I'll skip it here), and had nursed him back to health and was looking for a permanent home for him. (Yes, she had evidence for her story.) She was thrilled to be able to return him to his breeder.

There are no commercial breeders who do this; you can't do all this and take that kind of responsibility for every single puppy for life, and produce puppies in commercially viable numbers.

This is the definition of "responsible breeder" used by the core of the dog fancy that does this kind of breeding, and by the rescues that are willing to work with breeders and don't demonize them all as "a breeder is a breeder is a breeder."

I will say again that irresponsible pet owners, who don't intend to breed but do because their dogs are intact and allowed to roam, are a huge problem too. If you live in an area where this is not a big problem, you may not fully appreciate the extent of it, but many shelters fill up and are forced to euthanize because of that, whether or not there are puppy mills in the area.

In the northeast and the northwest, this is not a big problem, because of both the availability of low-cost spay/neuter services, including mobile clinics to reach people who don't have transportation they can take a dog on, and because of the huge social pressure to spay or neuter your pets. It's not that people in the northeast and northwest are intrinsically more responsible; it's that more than three decades ago, a big push started to make speutering the norm. You don't get asked if you're going to speuter your new pet; you get asked when the surgery is scheduled for. This has been vastly more effective than the punitive compulsory methods that are often perceived as the "only way" in areas that haven't tried aggressive spay/neuter outreach programs yet.

As for shelters being "forced" to euthanize animals in large numbers: no, sorry, shelters in every part of the US, and in urban, suburban, and rural areas, and in poor areas and in rich areas, have gone No Kill without becoming warehouses for unwanted animals and while remaining open admission and without cooking their numbers. They report live release rates, not adoption rates of animals deemed adoptable. They have drastically upped their adoption rates--in part because No Kill shelters are less upsetting for potential adopters, ithey've increased their adoption hours,  hold off-site adoption events, work with rescues and with shelters in other areas, and don't constantly rant on about the Irresponsible Public. They recognize that the pet-loving public is a huge and valuable ally.

Barbara, you said:

From the scuttlebutt, "show breeders" have cut down their breeding due to lack of "demand" for pet pups.

What scuttlebutt, where, and from whom?

Not every "show breeder" is a responsible breeder. There are "show millers" who do show some of their dogs, may do health screening on those dogs before breeding them--but also have a larger number of dogs who exist to breed puppies strictly for commercial sale. They prey on the puppy buyer who is just knowledgable enough to know that a responsibly bred puppies should have champions in its pedigree, but are trusting and unknowledgable enough that they don't ask all the right questions or know what the answers should be.

Everyone:

Today I stopped in at my local shelter to drop off some food, and I visited the dogs while I was there. There were, in fact, a number of little dogs, and most of those little dogs were fluffy little dogs. All but one of those dogs, AND also all the biggers dogs that were listed as being good with kids and not needing an experienced owner, had an adoption pending. The one small dog that didn't have an adoption pending was a ten-year-old Pomeranian, a cute, sweet dog, housebroken and good with cats and other dogs, and "okay" with children. I took her for a walk, and she was simply not interested until we turned around and headed back towards the shelter--that perked her up! She did not seem as though she would enjoy my higher-energy, younger dog. But as I returned her to the shelter, several other people were asking about her and cooing at her, and as I drove away, she was already heading out for another walk, with a family I'd heard asking about "any dog that's good with kids" regardless of size. One Sunday afternoon, in the midst of the economic crisis.

Lis March 8th, 2009 03:03:37 PM

Lis, One of the accidentally deleted previous posts , I referred to "show millers". I'm on the same page as you. The show-breeders I refer to are the one's I am in contact with: regional Scottie & national Sealy...I really should have clarified that & thank you for calling me out. I have no way of keeping track of other or more popular breeds.Although AKC is lamenting about declining registrations & lack of conformation entries.

You are right on, the s/n mantra began decades ago & has been successful."you get asked when the surgery is scheduled for", OMG, verbatim....when I brought my puppy Ike in for routine exam....complete with horrified expression after stating "NOT". And not because of *any* breeding purposes, but strictly from a health standpoint...I don't abide for premature/early s/n of any pet.8 weeks old, gasp!

I can only fathom that apathy & hopelessness has pervaded any reasonable course of action for the longterm and that is driving some of this legislation proposals.

Did Obama choose & receive the PWD pup yet? Had to have been introduced via the Kennedys?? (Saw a few running down at the Cape!!)

Pocket's Story from NH March 8th, 2009 03:56:00 PM

On Mexican street dogs: That would be dogs imported from shelters in Mexico.

Of course Durbin did try and pass something about needing a licensed individual to ship into the US but I doubt that will stop the flow of Mexican street dogs in US shelters.

So sorry as much as I would like to tell Stefani she is correct or just play with the sarcasm. The truth is we have been importing dogs from the streets of Mexico. What will be next? Telling American women they cannot have children until the entire globe has no orphans? Sorry Stefani there is no logic in bringing diseased animals into the country and damaging our economy in the process.

http://www.animalplace.org/dogsrescues.html

A.N. March 8th, 2009 05:10:07 PM

Although AKC is lamenting about declining registrations & lack of conformation entries.

The AKC, sadly, is all too willing to depend upon puppy mill registrations. It's the individual national breed clubs that resist that. The national breed clubs made the AKC back down from a deal with Hunte Corporation to expedite the registration of  "purebred" puppies sold in pet stores. It  was an absolute uprising that apparently took the AKC board completely by surprise.

The one thing the AKC has done that's useful in this regard is to require DNA testing of litters from "frequently used sires." It's the only thing they've done that puts any restraints at all on the puppy mills' ability to claim whatever they like abou their dogs--and it cost them so many puppy mills who switched over to paper-mill registries that will register anything at all with a picture and an assertion about what it is, that they would love to go back on it if they could. Some of the breed clubs would like to place requirements beyond having two registered parent on the regisration of puppies, but the AKC won't go along with it, and the AKC is the registry.

I have just deleted a paragraph about the relationship between responsible breeding and the AKC. Remember to thank me for that. :)

Lis March 8th, 2009 05:59:20 PM

Lis, about your thoughts on shelters not being forced to euthanise, you may want to check http://fortheloveofthedogblog.com/news-updates/help-end-georgias-gas-chambers-in-shelters-time-is-running-out. I am not sure what would compell a person to deny the reality of mass dog and cat euthanasia in this country. Perhaps I misunderstood your point, I don't know.

Natalie Kramer March 10th, 2009 01:13:39 PM

Natalie, yes, I know, shelters are killing dogs and cats, as well as other animals. I didn't say that that's not happening.

What I said is, It's. Not. NECESSARY. It's a product of "this is how we've always done it" thinking, and a shelter industry that's too often resistant to new (and more effective) ways of doing things. The numbers of shelter deaths has fallen dramatically over the last thirty years, even while the numbers of humans, dogs, and cats in the country has risen very greatly, precisely because there are newer, better, more effective ways of doing things. In the northeast and northwest, spay/neuter rates for pet animals are extremely high, and the numbers of puppies, at least, in shelters very low. (Kittens are another matter. We still have a distressingly prolific kitten season. The cat problem is different than the dog problem, and conflating them obscures how much better things have gotten with regard to dogs.) And shelters in every part of the country--north, south, east, west; urban and rural; rich and poor--have successfully gone No Kill without becoming crowded warehouses for the unwanted and un-rehomable. They have very high adoption rates--live release rates of 90% or better.

They do it when they have good leadership that goes out and musters community support. They do it when they treat the pet-loving public as allies rather than "guilty until proven innocent" probable animal abusers. They do it when they get out of the mindset of "this is the way we've always done it, so this must be the best possible way to do it."

They do it when they stop thinking of themselves as Animal Control, and start thinking of themselves as animal shelters.

It surely says something that shelters that REALLY ARE the Animal Control facilities for their counties are among the shelters that have done this successfully, while remaining open admission and without becoming crowded animal warehouses.

Lis March 11th, 2009 01:53:17 PM

شات

amal_ May 22nd, 2009 05:05:24 AM

http://www.fantastic-replica.net

sare July 2nd, 2009 01:45:29 AM

http://www.fantastic-replica.net/

sare July 2nd, 2009 01:47:23 AM

wholesale replica handbags

sare July 2nd, 2009 01:49:16 AM

[url=http://www.fantastic-replica.net/]wholesale replica handbags[/url]

hgh July 2nd, 2009 01:53:45 AM

http://www.fantastic-replica.net

www.fantastic-replica.net July 2nd, 2009 01:55:35 AM

he very mention of the word <strong><a mce_href="http://www.tiffanyfree.co.uk" href="http://www.tiffanyfree.co.uk/">Tiffany co</a></strong>

fdf July 16th, 2009 10:06:36 PM

wholesale replica handbags

sare July 25th, 2009 04:35:42 AM

Thanks for your sharing.This is a good access to Amercrombie and Fitch

Ambecrombie and Fitch September 17th, 2009 03:52:38 AM

Blu ray Ripper

bwrtsf October 5th, 2009 09:57:48 AM

I am president of an animal rescue group.  I think it's great that laws are finally being put into place for these so called breeders.  Now if we could only get some strict regulation going with AKC.  Anyone that thinks it's ok to breed dogs and own over 50, do not need any animals.  Breeding is very out of control and I and many others helped to get the law passed on spaying and neutering.  Only an idiot would think this is not good for pets.  I guess "pets" is the keyword here, breeders do not own "pets".  Anyone who profits from the selling of animals is not fit to own animals.  Dogs and Cats are supposed to part of the family, not caged and bred over and over so that some unfit owner can get some bucks in his pockets.

Paula Ford

paula ford October 25th, 2009 09:06:30 PM

Maurice Lacroix watches

Louis Vuitton watches November 9th, 2009 02:40:34 PM

Hublot replica

replica oris November 11th, 2009 09:14:34 AM

Panerai watch for sale

replica croum November 11th, 2009 09:32:16 AM

Rolex Submariner watch for sale

Yachtmaster watch for sale

Rolex Day-Date II watch for sale

Breguet watch for sale November 12th, 2009 01:15:31 PM

<a href="watcehshttp://www.cartierwatches.us/">watcehs</a><a href="a.Lange'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/A.Lange-&amp;-Sohne/">a.Lange &amp; sohne watches</a><a href="Audemars'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Audemars-Piguet/">Audemars Piguet watches</a><a href="Bell'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Bell-&amp;-Ross/">Bell &amp; Ross watches</a><a href="Breguet'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Breguet/">Breguet watches</a><a href="Breitling'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Breitling/">Breitling watches</a><a href="Burberry'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Burberry/">Burberry watches</a><a href="Bvlgari'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Bvlgari/">Bvlgari watches</a><a href="Cartier'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Cartier/">Cartier watches</a><a href="chopard'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Chopard/">chopard watches</a><a href="Concord'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Concord/">Concord watches</a><a href="croum'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Corum/">croum watches</a><a href="DeWitt'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/DeWitt/">DeWitt watches</a><a href="Glashutte'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Glashutte/">Glashutte watches</a>

Bvlgari November 12th, 2009 01:30:57 PM

<a href="Concord'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Concord/">Concord watches</a><a href="croum'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Corum/">croum watches</a><a href="DeWitt'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/DeWitt/">DeWitt watches</a><a href="Glashutte'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Glashutte/">Glashutte watches</a><a href="Graham'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Graham/">Graham watches</a><a href="Hermes'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Hermes/">Hermes watches</a><a href="Hublot'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Hublot/">Hublot watches</a><a href="IWC'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/IWC/">IWC watches</a><a href="Jaquet'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Jaquet-droz/">Jaquet droz watches</a><a href="Lady'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Lady-Watches/">Lady Watch watches</a><a href="Longines'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Longines/">Longines watches</a><a href="Louis'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Louis-Vuitton/">Louis Vuitton watches</a><a href="Maurice'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Maurice-Lacroix/">Maurice Lacroix watches</a><a href="Montblanc'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Montblanc/">Montblanc watches</a>

Hublot November 12th, 2009 01:31:23 PM

However mean your life is, tiffany jewelry meet it and live it do not shun it and call it hard discount tiffany jewelry unt tiffany jewelry It is not so bad as you are.It looks poorest when you are richest.

tiffany jewelry November 12th, 2009 09:36:29 PM

Longines replica

Jaquet droz replica November 15th, 2009 03:00:56 PM

<a href="Cartier'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Cartier/">Cartier watch for sale</a><a href="chopard'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Chopard/">chopard watch for sale</a><a href="Concord'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Concord/">Concord watch for sale</a><a href="croum'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Corum/">croum watch for sale</a><a href="DeWitt'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/DeWitt/">DeWitt watch for sale</a><a href="ebel'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Ebel/">ebel watch for sale</a><a href="Ferrari'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Ferrari/">Ferrari watch for sale</a><a href="Franck'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Franck-Muller/">Franck Muller watch for sale</a>

Franck Muller watch for sale November 17th, 2009 03:35:26 PM

http://www.cheapgoodssale.com

china wholeshoe November 18th, 2009 11:11:48 AM

<a href="http://www.christianlouboutinbuy.org/Christian-Louboutin-Shoes/">cheap Christian Louboutin Shoes</a><a href="http://www.christianlouboutinbuy.org/Christian-Louboutin-Shoes/">discount Christian Louboutin Shoes</a><a href="http://www.christianlouboutinbuy.org/Christian-Louboutin-Shoes/">Christian Louboutin Shoes on sale</a><a href="http://www.christianlouboutinbuy.org/Christian-Louboutin-Wedges/">Christian Louboutin Wedges on sale</a><a href="http://www.christianlouboutinbuy.org/Christian-Louboutin-Wedges/">cheap Christian Louboutin Wedges</a><a href="http://www.christianlouboutinbuy.org/Christian-Louboutin-Wedges/">discount Christian Louboutin Wedges</a><a href="http://www.christianlouboutinbuy.org/Christian-Louboutin-Wedges/">discount Christian Louboutin Wedges</a><a href="http://www.christianlouboutinbuy.org/Christian-Louboutin-Pumps/">Christian Louboutin Pumps</a><a href="http://www.christianlouboutinbuy.org/Christian-Louboutin-Pumps/">cheap Christian Louboutin Pumps</a><a href="http://www.christianlouboutinbuy.org/Christian-Louboutin-Pumps/">discount Christian Louboutin Pumps</a><a href="http://www.christianlouboutinbuy.org/Christian-Louboutin-Pumps/">Christian Louboutin Pumps on sale</a><a href="http://www.christianlouboutinbuy.org/Christian-Louboutin-Sandals/">Christian Louboutin Sandals</a><a href="http://www.christianlouboutinbuy.org/Christian-Louboutin-Sandals/">cheap Christian Louboutin Sandals</a><a href="http://www.christianlouboutinbuy.org/Christian-Louboutin-Sandals/">discount Christian Louboutin Sandals</a><a href="http://www.christianlouboutinbuy.org/Christian-Louboutin-Sandals/">Christian Louboutin Sandals on sale</a>

Christian Louboutin Shoes November 23rd, 2009 11:05:13 AM

omega watch for sale

Hermes watches November 23rd, 2009 03:06:50 PM

“Marriage bridal gown world pictures pictures of wanted to plan a happy surprise, a number of wedding photography studio is the purpose of holding more money ‘Kengren’, they set a ‘trap’ let you keep track of.” Wedding photos has just finished a small selection mother told the journalists, was originally a good original price 7999 yuan Zhao Shuren said that the wedding package, less than 2,000 yuan only to 5999 yuan.

bridal November 24th, 2009 01:24:15 AM

Christian Louboutin Fashion Boots

Christian Louboutin Fashion Boots November 24th, 2009 07:52:12 AM

cheap Christian Louboutin Wedges

cheap Christian Louboutin Wedges November 25th, 2009 08:10:35 AM

Christian Louboutin Sandals

Christian Louboutin Sandals November 26th, 2009 11:53:45 PM

Thank you so much for this post, it is very kind of you!Blu-ray Ripper is an excellent Blu-ray disc ripper and Blu-ray movie ripper, that can help you rip movies from Blu-ray disc and convert to all popular video formats stored on your computer. You can also use it to rip Blu-ray into iTunes for your easy management and watching on iPod, iPhone, etc.more info:http://www.bluray-hd.net/

Blu-ray Ripper January 21st, 2010 09:22:24 PM