Good News: More Large Mixed Breed Pups Now Available!

I come across postings regularly on various internet sites listing puppies in need of homes. On occasion, I pick one out to share. In this one, I have changed the breeds to breeds of similar size to protect the innocent (dogs):

Hi!! I have three puppies that are ready for new homes. There is one boy and two girls. Their mama is a Newfoundland mix and the daddy is a Chow/Lab mix. These are very beautiful babies, and they are the sweetest things in the world. I would keep them but I have to feed their mama and her mama, which is the Newfoundland and they eat alot.

Using my brilliant powers of deduction, I take it that we have a dog breeder here. With the limited information contained in the post, I can only trace the lineage 3 generations but it looks like the Newfoundland was bred to a a dog who was something other than a Newfoundland and at least one female puppy from the resulting litter was kept by the breeder. That Newf mix puppy was bred to a Chow/Lab mix and the breeder is unable to keep the pups because the dam and grandam eat too much.

I don't know if these breedings were intentional or if the breeder considers them accidents but if they were not intentional, one wonders why more effective protocols were not introduced to prevent accidental breedings somewhere along the way. If they were intentional, one wonders what the purpose of the breedings is. (Yes, you must have a purpose in dog breeding!) Most of the common reasons for planned breedings that come to my mind seem to obviously not fit here: Profit, supply dogs for a competition or utilitarian function, supply a waiting list of owners with puppies, create a new breed, allow the kids to experience the birth of a litter one time, etc. I honestly can't think of a purpose for these breedings. Maybe there is one and it just isn't striking me at the moment. I think it's reasonable to assume that if the breeder fails to find homes for the pups, she won't be keeping them (that eating thing is a strong indicator). My hope is that these pups will find homes and will not end up at a shelter where they have a good chance of being killed.

The post does not indicate if this breeder is screening homes in order to protect the pups. Nor if she will offer support to the new owner for the life of the dog and be willing to take the puppy back or help with rehoming if that circumstance arises at some point in the dog's life. I hope that she simply forgot to state these things because, accidental or intentional, she is the breeder and that's a breeder's obligation. Oh and as for the feeding thing and the fact that big dogs eat a lot of food - yeah, that's a breeder's obligation too.

***

Search for low/no cost spay-neuter services in your area at the ASPCA website.

SC Pitbull Breeder FAIL

The differences between what constitutes a responsible dog breeder and an irresponsible one are often the subject of debate among dog people. One pretty reliable sign that ur doin it rong as a breeder is if you rent a U-Haul to load up with your breeding stock and drive them to a kill shelter:

Twenty-two dogs were dropped off at the Greenville County Animal Shelter in a U-Haul truck. The shelter manager says its because the puppies were the wrong color.
[...]
[Shelter manager Shelly] Simmons said the owners were trying to breed "blue" pitt bulls because they sell for higher prices. Instead, they got 17 puppies in every color except blue.

Greenville Co Animal Care Services is hoping to find homes for all the dogs but the shelter they work with, Greenville Humane Society, refuses to adopt out Pitbulls and rescues are full.

There is a video at the link of a bunch of puppies who look too young to be separated from their dams. The article states:

Six pitt bull puppies are available now, as are the adults. The cost is $60. Shots, micro-chips and spay or neutering are included. Interested adopters can call Greenville County Animal Care Services at [864]467-3950 or email animalcareservices@greenvillecounty.org.

Contrary to popular belief, blue Pitbulls are not rare or worth paying extra money for simply by virtue of their coat color. For more info, see the "Myths" page on this Pitbull site:

There is, unfortunately, a faction of breeders (all unscrupulous), that are
attempting to cash in on the current fad of blue and red nosed dogs.
These people produce poor quality animals with no thought to health
and temperament, their biggest selling point being coat color. Breeders
of this type many times charge jacked up prices for their puppies,
justifying the high price tag by claiming their dogs are of a "rare" or
"special" color. The unsuspecting buyer is duped into believing their
animal is extraordinary simply because he happens to have an "odd"
colored nose. Breeders of this ilk are especially dubious because not only
are they producing bad stock, but they lure their customers in by making
false claims.

And in the case of at least one breeder in Greenville Co, they are not only lying to customers to try and get more money, they are lying to their dogs. Because as any good breeder will tell you, we make promises to our dogs that we will do our very best to ensure they have long and happy lives, even if they are not in our care, and that we will protect them from ever being dumped at a kill shelter.

TV Program Alert

Pedigree Dogs Exposed will be aired in the US for the first time tonight on BBC America channel. Check your local listings.

What is a "Puppy Mill"? - Part 2

The following post was written in 2008 by Saluki breeder Betsy Cummings. I thought it would be perfect food for thought in my series on the subject of defining puppy mills. I'm most interested in your reactions, thoughts, and opinions on her points.

***

I got in late last nite from Springfield, MO. What is there to interest me? Well, the 18th Spring Educational Seminar and Meeting of the Missouri Pet Breeders Association. Yeah, the puppy mill folks. They prefer Professional Breeders. And after what I saw this weekend, I'm quite willing to cut them some slack.

On Friday were 4 seminars, although one was cancelled because the State Veterinarian had been bitten by a dog and the rabies vaxx was questionable, so the poor guy has to take the shots and wasn't feeling well. So another guy came and spoke on something else. On Saturday was Pat Hasting's Puppy Puzzle Seminar - which was FREE. To anybody. How many have paid $150 or more to a kennel club to see this seminar?

I'm now going to propose a viewpoint that I know full well isn't going to be popular, nor is it going to win me friends. Many of you will scoff and criticize. It's ingrained in "us" to do so. Say the words Puppy Mill, or Commercial Breeder and most of us have a knee jerk reaction of total horror. We picture "bubba's" on Walmart parking lots and highway corners selling puppies to anybody who comes along. Not that that doesn't happen. However, those folks tend to be wannabe's and illegal puppy mills. There were only a few people there I'd call "Bubba's" this weekend. MOST of the people were people just like you and me. You couldn't have told by dress or manner what these folks did for a living. Most even spoke "educated beyond the 1st grade" english. And it was obvious from the gal with the poodle died pink to the gal who came in with a sheltie she'd rescued off an 8 lane highway and wanted her put somewhere safe, that these folks live and breathe DOGS. In that respect, they aren't that much different from you and me.

Friday's program included one that has me shaking my head and asking where "we" ("we" being the show dog fancy) are. The MPBA has no less than 3 professional lobbyists. One in Washington DC, and 2 in our state capital. Even more, the State Representative from Salem, MO is one of "them." These 4 folks stood before a room of about 300 people and gave us a list of the legislation they've had a part in killing altogether, or getting changed to something reasonable. My question is...where the hell are WE??? If the MPBA can have THREE full time professional lobbyists...what's OUR problem??? My next question is...Why the HELL aren't we working with these people???? They know how to do it. They aren't starting from scratch. They've been working in the trenches for quite awhile. And all supported by the puppy millers! These folks are fighting for OUR rights as much as for their own, but the end results are the same - I can still own dogs in the state of Missouri, and they don't have to be spayed or neutered either.

Saturday's program was Pat Hasting's seminar. It was not quite as well attended as some of the Friday seminars since it was a 'voluntary' program. (I'll explain that in a minute.) However, the room was probably over half full - call it 200 people give or take. She played the angle toward "If you're breeding better dogs structurally, you make more money." It was a good call. She went over 7 lab puppies - some were from show bred lines, and some from a commercial kennel. She wouldn't say which were which. And based on the strengths and faults she found I certainly couldn't tell. One had an ewe neck which she demonstrated by flipping that puppy's head over onto its spine - no distress to the puppy! One had no muscling on the inside of it's legs so when she stacked it and pushed just a teensy bit from the side the puppy fell over. 3 had slipped hocks. One had a herring gut. The gasps when each of these faults were demonstrated were...quite loud. And she flat out asked why they weren't breeding away from these faults - they'd make more money providing a quality, well bred dog than ones with health and structural issues. There were some good questions from the audience, and some questions that are so basic as to be laughable...except nobody laughed. These folks are putting forth good effort, and I for one am willing to give them some credit for that. (And btw - Pat commented that each puppy was in it's own crate and that when she does show litters they usually come in ONE crate. And those crates were scrupulously clean, with food and water. *G*)

Having said this, I'll also state I'm not willing to sell to them, or breed with them. But there are show folks I can say the same about, so that's nothing different. These folks are however, policing themselves. They don't tolerate sub-standard kennels and they turn them in immediately. That's better than "we" can say when we tolerate folks we KNOW have starving animals, or worse. And just who is it on most of the news when a rescue makes the news? More often than not it's a "rescuer" or show breeder turned in by a neighbor...NOT by US.

Anyway, these folks are working to improve their industry. For 18 years they have continually raised the bar for their members. They provide seminars on everything from puppy nutrition to health in their kennels to structure - FREE. Not just for their members, but to ANYBODY. It was a very strange feeling to be in a building full of people I have always thought of as the "enemy." So much so I was very reluctant to admit I'm a show breeder. But when I did once or twice, these folks never blinked. And just who was there? The AKC. Bil-Jac. Eukanuba. Royal Canin. Hunte Corp - who btw, had fully 1/5th of the room for their booth.

And let me detour on Hunte Corp a minute. They were handing out information on their standards for buying puppies. IE, the breeders must meet some minimum requirements before Hunte will purchase their dogs. On top of those minimum requirements they pay a bonus for such things as health tested parents, Ch parents, and something else that escapes me at the moment. So they too are not only raising the bar, but leading the way in doing so.

APRI was there. With videos of their events. I always thought they were just a paper registry. Well, they're not. And lemme tell ya, the shutzhund and agility events looked pretty tuff. And not only that, but APRI alone gave $10,000 to the legislative fund - IE, the fund that pays for the lobbyists. Our little fledgling groups, PetPAC, etc would KILL for that kind of money right now.

And in all of this, I have to wonder...where are we? What are WE doing? If we choose to attend such a thing, it's voluntary. These folks are requiring it of their members. You want to be considered a top breeder...then you MUST have continuing education. Not when I feel like it, but MUST, every year, have so many credits of education. Not even our JUDGES have to do that beyond what they do to earn more breeds. We watched folks spend THOUSANDS on equipment, food, meds, and by god TREATS. Just who gives treats to their dogs? Those who LOVE them. That's who.

I had a conversation with a guy this weekend about his kennel. He proudly told me he is a "Blue Ribbon Kennel" - meaning he's met the standards for the MPBA to earn that. He gets his education credits, etc, and I assume, has met some standards of health and cleanliness in his kennels. He said he's *never* had an outbreak of anything in his kennel. Not even kennel cough. His "bio standards" are set so high that even his family must follow them in the house not just in the kennel. So I asked him what happens when the dogs leave his kennel. Their immune systems have never been challenged and suddenly they're out in the big bad world being hit with everything all at once. He went, Oh. I never thought of that. Hm. He said "What do you do?" And I had to admit I'm a show breeder, so I breed once every few years and I do take extra precautions while the bitch is pregnant and when the pups are less than 9 weeks old, but that after that I have those puppies out and about every week or two so that not only do I immunize but I give their immune systems exposure to things outside of home so that when we do go on the road to shows and such they aren't suddenly overwhelmed and have a chance to fight. I'm not sure I changed his mind exactly, but I did give him something to think about.

I admit, I went for the chance to see Pat Hasting's seminar for free. Beyond that I was prepared to keep my mouth shut. Instead, I found myself going...wow. Just how many of us would goto this level of effort to keep our dogs? These people put their money where their mouth is. And I am quite willing to allow them the title Professional Breeder and to stop having a knee jerk reaction and give them some credit for things even "we" don't do. That doesn't mean there aren't "Bubba's" in this world, or that I include those folks in the term Professional Breeder. A professional of any kind be it lawyer, doctor, handler, veterinarian, engineer, architect, etc has professional standards to meet. These folks do too. And since *I* don't care to provide puppies for every home that wants a dog I'm willing to allow the professionals to do so. It keeps MY dogs safe in the hands of those I feel will have respect for the dog, treat it the way I want my dogs treated, and HOPEFULLY they never end up in a shelter or dumped on the side of the road or as bait for a dog fight.

And I refuse to slam or denigrate these folks further. They are providing a service not ONE of us wants to do. And they have been working for at least the last 18 years to improve what they do - both in what they produce and the conditions under which they produce it. That JQP tends to treat dogs as a throw away commodity isn't entirely their fault. It's not ours either. It's a societal thing and ALL of us must work to change that. Somewhere between dogs in shelters and puppymills lies the answer. I don't know what it is. But JQP wants dogs - that much is obvious. And right now, even our basic rights to HAVE dogs is under attack. I for one am willing to work with the folks who have the experience and the know how to fight these things. And I'm willing to give credit where credit is due - here in Missouri at least, we have come under LESS attack than other areas and I recognize that a good part of that is because of the professional breeders and their lobbyists efforts.

Betsy

Betsy & Kevin Cummings
Tribute Salukis

Copyright © 2008 Betsy Cummings

Document may be reproduced in its entirety (not in sections), as long as the author is credited.

Bad News for CA Pet Owners

CA AB 241 was apparently passed by the CA Senate yesterday. The bill, according to the American Kennel Club, "will prohibit businesses and individuals who buys or sells cats and dogs from owning more than a combined total of 50 intact dogs or cats" (including puppies/kittens). I've blogged many times about why purported pet "protection" legislation that states number of pets determines quality of care makes no sense to me. Quality husbandry never has been and never will be determined by numbers of dog owned. One dog owned by a person can be neglected/abused. So can two dogs. As can 12 or 37 or 62. By the same token, all those same numbers of dogs might be well cared for by an owner. Granted the more dogs owned, the more help needed to provide quality care.

Another reason I find these numbers bills troubling is that the numbers vary greatly all across the country. In CA, HSUS says 50 is the magic number which equals "puppy mill". But in NC, HSUS said owning 15 bitches was the puppy miller indicator. And there are other numbers in similar bills all over the country. Why the inconsistency? If indeed quality of care is determined by number of dogs owned, shouldn't there be one number for all owners? If a NC breeder is a "puppy miller" because she owns 15 bitches but then moves to CA, does she become a "responsible breeder" because she's well under the 50 limit?

But to me, perhaps the most disturbing element of these bills is that, in my crystal ball opinion, it will not stop at 50 (or 15 or whatever). This is a foot in the door, a chance to say, "Surely we can all agree that only an evil puppy miller would have more than 50 dogs". If the anti-pet lobbyists in CA don't try to get this number lowered in future, I'll eat my hat.

In Philadelphia currently, the pet limit is 12 but there are efforts underway to get that number reduced. There's no way to know if those efforts will be successful but assuming for the sake of discussion they are, perhaps the number will be reduced to 8. Then possibly a future amendment will cut it to 4. Noticing a trend here? This hasn't happened - yet - but surely we'd be unwise to ignore the potential for having our rights as pet owners legislated away from us.

The anti-pet lobbyists don't stand up and say, "We want a foot in the door so that eventually we can eliminate the right to own pets" because that would sound crazy. Instead they say things like "protecting pets" and "cruel puppy mills" which all sound dandy. And to those of us paying attention to the possible future direction of these laws, the lobbyists say, "That sounds crazy". Clever work.

NC "Puppy Mill Bill" Set for Final Senate Vote Today

NC Senate Bill 460 is a "puppy mill bill" which HSUS played a key role in developing:

"We will soon introduce legislation that will help to crack down on the cruel puppy mill industry in our state." [said Amanda Arrington, North Carolina state director for The HSUS.]

That bill is set for a final vote today. If you are a NC resident, a list of your state Senators can be found here.

Included in the current version of the bill:

• "Commercial breeder" means any person who owns or maintains 15 or more intact female dogs of breeding age and 30 or more puppies for the purpose of sale. Nothing in this Article shall apply to those kennels or establishments operated for the purpose of boarding or training hunting, sporting, herding, show, or working dogs.
• "Commercial breeding operation" means the physical location or facility at which a commercial breeder breeds or maintains intact female dogs of breeding age and puppies.
• Commercial breeders shall provide adequate veterinary care to the intact female dogs of breeding age and any puppies in their care and custody. An intact female dog of breeding age shall not be bred without an examination from a licensed veterinarian to determine that the dog is in suitable health for breeding.
• Commercial breeding operations shall be subject to inspection by duly appointed employees of the Department unless otherwise requested by a local animal control officer and authorized by the Department. In conducting such inspections, the Department employee or local animal control officer may inspect the records of the commercial breeder, the premises where animals are bred and maintained, and any animal used in the breeding program or any puppies in their care and custody.

I interpret this to mean that a breeder with 30 puppies for sale who cares for dogs in her home is prohibited by law from making decisions on breeding bitches unless a Vet signs off on it. Further, the breeder is subject to warrantless searches of her home and inspection of adults and pups by whoever shows up to do the inspecting. I don't know about you but I don't allow visitors when I have pups, especially if they've had contact with other dogs. It's too great a risk to the health of the pups to my mind. And I prefer to make my own decisions on breeding bitches. Not that I wouldn't consider input from my Vet, but my Vet may or may not be a breeder and his opinion would not trump mine. As for warrantless searches of my home - put me down for "nuh-uh".

Commercial dog breeders are already regulated by the USDA. They've been falling down on the job for years but that is not an excuse to pile more intrusive laws on top of the already unenforced ones on the books. Let's get the USDA the funding, manpower and resources it needs to enforce the laws as they stand. After they get their feet under them, let's hear from them what tools they need to better insure humane care of dogs. Maybe laws will need to be strengthened, or more funding provided to enforcement, I don't know. But to my way of thinking, it's better to fully utilize what the government already has in place rather than add more laws, expense and burden to taxpayers. The idea that we can't enforce the commercial breeding laws we have now therefore we must add more laws just doesn't make sense to me.

We all want good quality care for dogs. I can't see how this bill accomplishes that. We are a humane society, not a police state. Let's work within the existing framework and see how things can be improved. I am all for progress but this bill is a giant step backwards to me.


Related: The Long Arm of HSUS in NC

What is a "Puppy Mill"?

Although I'm not prepared to put as much thought into this post as would be required to answer such a question, I am ready to put down a few thoughts on the subject. I'm sure at some point I will add on to these and hopefully eventually come up with an answer, albeit a subjective one, to my own question. Perhaps this can be viewed as an installment series or some similarly lofty sounding endeavor.

To me, dogs are pets. What constitutes living a good quality life as a pet is interpreted differently by individual owners. For me, it means living in the house as part of the family, and receiving daily personal care, exercise, discipline, affection, and good food. I can however, understand how another owner, for example someone who keeps a dog to protect his sheep from predation, might specifically want his dog to live primarily outdoors. So long as adequate shelter is provided in conjunction with meeting the personal needs of the dog I mentioned previously, I can agree that this is good quality life for a pet, even though it's different from my personal choice. Similarly, I can imagine other variations outside my individual choices where the dog is ultimately treated as a member of the family and as such, I would agree that the dog has a good quality of life.

There are some practices though that fall so far outside my comfort level, I view them not just as different but as cruelty. In a broad sense, that would include any dog who is not treated as a member of the family. Specifically, a dog who spends most of his day to day life unattended in a cage or kennel, on a chain or roaming the streets. Keeping the area of confinement clean, while a good practice, does not make up for the dog's social deprivation. Nor does putting out a bowl of food for a dog allowed to roam the neighborhood - again, good practice to feed a dog regularly but that doesn't make the dog a family pet to my mind.

This is not strictly a numbers issue for me. I can envision a family with plentiful resources being able to provide a good quality of life for a large number of pets just as I know that an owner of a single dog can be neglectful. Put another way, where numbers come in is anytime there is neglect. If a family is neglecting some or all of their dogs, there is a problem. If a breeder is neglecting some or all of his stock or pups, it doesn't matter to me if that breeder produces 2 litters a year or 2 litters every 10 years - there is a problem.

What I think would be helpful:

Educate the public about responsible breeding and buying including the importance of having a personal relationship with the breeder and the benefits of getting a shelter dog.

Encourage more responsible breeding. The demand for responsibly bred dogs far exceeds the supply. This is the main reason people I know have turned to pet stores - they couldn't find the pet they wanted in a shelter and/or were turned down by rescue and/or didn't want to be placed on a lengthy waiting list with a responsible breeder with no guarantee of getting a pup ever. My vision is to increase the supply of responsibly bred pups while promoting the benefits of adopting shelter dogs. If we could convince the public that these are the two best ways to obtain pets, we could reduce (eventually eliminate?) the demand for pet store pups. It's not like it's a hard sell: going to a shelter saves a dog's life in many cases and buying from a responsible breeder means having a personal relationship with someone who cares about what happens to their pups enough to screen buyers and provide support for the life of the dog.

I know lots of people hate these ideas. Some people are stuck on the "don't breed or buy while shelter pets die" mantra. The reality is that, while we can and absolutely must do everything possible to promote shelter adoptions, some owners will not adopt from a shelter. Rather than ignore that fact or condemn those folks, I'd rather provide them with an alternative: buy a responsibly bred pup. Right now, there are not enough of those and so people turn to other sources. I'd like to increase the supply of responsibly bred pups.

Other people hate the idea of promoting breeding for pets. Breeders who compete with their dogs often consider the only justifiable purpose of breeding to be the production of more competition dogs with "pets" being a leftover effect. The reality is that most owners do not want competition dogs - they want couch snugglers, jogging partners, ball chasers, etc. Ignoring that fact or condemning those folks to wait indefinitely on your waiting list in case you have a "leftover" at some point in future drives people to other sources.

I often use a personal experience as an example. I once wanted a Papillon. In fact I'd still like to have a Papillon someday (in case you are reading Santa). I checked every shelter in my area for a Pap or even a Pap-ish mix - no luck. I applied to Pap rescue but the number of applicants far exceeded the number of available dogs and honestly, the process seemed humiliating to me. I am all for screening buyers but there has to be some reasonable limit on that. My experience turned into a competition - literally. I bowed out. I inquired to several responsible breeders but it was explained to me that Pap breeders are breeding to supply themselves with a new pup. Sometimes they make an agreement with the stud dog owner to give a pup in lieu of stud fee. As such, one or two pups from each litter were already spoken for. Since Paps have small litters and many breeders have just one or two litters per year, the best I could hope for was to be placed on a waiting list and perhaps in some future year, I might get a call about an available pup. I didn't want a Pap in some future year, I wanted one at the time it was appropriate in my life. Should I be condemned for wanting a Pap within a reasonable time frame? Should I be condemned for not taking a shelter dog instead? I know some people would answer "yes". For the record, I did end up adopting a shelter dog instead. But I know more than one person who has turned to alternate sources when faced with the situation I was in - they bought from pet stores or irresponsible breeders. Like me, they wanted to rescue a dog or buy from a responsible breeder but the supply fell short of the demand. I do not condemn them. Rather, I want to see the supply of responsibly bred pups increased in conjunction with education about the benefits of rescue.

OK obviously my random thoughts did not wind up answering my title question. Good thing I said that "installment" thing at the beginning. I'll try to answer my question eventually and I hope if you have some answers, questions, or random thoughts, you'll join in the discussion. I always enjoy hearing different views.

What's Going on in IN Dog Seizure Case?

The Indiana Attorney General's Office and HSUS "raided" a dairy farm Monday and seized 240 dogs on the grounds that the farm's owners had not paid taxes on the dog breeding operation. Squeeze me? Isn't there such a thing as an IRS audit or even some sort of warning letter? They say the owners haven't paid taxes so they just waltz in and take all the dogs? If I were the owners, I'd be wondering what the charges were:

No criminal charges have been filed, and the Garwoods [the farm owners] were not arrested.

Hmmm. No charges, no arrests and yet they seize 240 dogs. Oh and bonus: there are already plans to start adopting the dogs out shortly. Due process, anyone? Oh wait, the owners can't answer the charges against them because there are no charges. Clever clever. From the HSUS release:

Today's sales-tax-enforcement action took place under pre-existing law. A new law passed by the Legislature that takes effect July 1, House Enrolled Act. 1468, will give the state of Indiana additional enforcement authority against commercial dog-breeding operations. It requires that caged dogs be allowed out for exercise and increases the penalties for animal cruelty.
Puppy producers and brokers will be required to register with the State of Indiana, and that in turn could more readily trigger sales-tax investigations.

Oh glee.

I can't help but wonder if IN "puppy producers" aka breeders will want to register with the state, pay the annual fee (ranging from $75 - $500) and subject themselves to possible seizure of their dogs based upon allegations - not charges - of tax evasion. Some might think it's too risky and too great an infringement on their civil rights. In other words, some breeders may cease breeding altogether. Or maybe that was the point.

Will Warrantless Searches Save NC Shelter Pets from their Executioners?

A vague and intrusive breeder bill being considered in NC prompted an opinion piece in The News & Observer:

These animals come at a cost to taxpayers, who bear the burden of sheltering and killing the unlimited rejects of the commercial breeding industry. Animal shelters are easy dumping grounds for breeders seeking to dispose of animals deemed unsuitable for sale. These sick, genetically deformed dogs are then euthanized at the taxpayers' expense.

To paraphrase - If you don't support this bill, we'll keep killing shelter animals and you'll pay us to do it.

Newsflash: Taxpayers do not want to pay for killing shelter pets because shelter pets should be vetted, redeemed, rehomed, rehabilitated or placed into rescue - not killed. Euthanasia should be reserved to end suffering for those animals deemed medically hopeless or medically unmanageable by a Vet. Further, taxpayers do not want to fund your Breeder Police under a bill so vague that it puts many non-commercial breeders at risk of warrantless home searches.

The SPCA of Wake County does have an agenda: to end the killing of adoptable companion animals and to prevent the cruelty inflicted on animals.

The proven method to end the killing of adoptable pets in shelters is the implementation of the No Kill Equation. Embrace it, own it. Involve your community. We are a no kill nation of pet lovers who cherish our rights as U.S. citizens and won't be fooled into giving them up by scare tactics and misguided legislative proposals. Join us.

Obama Dog - Say What?

In the flurry of reporting surrounding the arrival of a new dog for the Obama family, I have come across multiple references to a shelter donation being made by the Obamas.  Exactly where the donation is going is a bit puzzling.

Lynn Sweet is reporting it's "a Humane Society".

Dogtime says it's "the Humane Society" (with link to HSUS site)

CNN:

CNN has confirmed that President Obama and the first lady will make a donation to the Washington D.C. Humane Society.

I think CNN is referring to the Washington Humane Society. They have a blog but it hasn't been updated since April 9 (before the Obama dog story broke).  Since the HSUS doesn't operate any shelters for pets and Washington Humane Society does, I'm thinking it's probably the latter who will receive the donation.



HSUS doesn't say anything about a donation but inexplicably, they write:

Families, like the Obamas, who are interested in a particular breed of animal or have special circumstances such as allergies in their household can turn to their local animal shelter or breed rescue group. About one-quarter of all dogs in shelters are purebreds, many surrendered by their owners like the new First Dog.

This certainly could be interpreted as indicating the Obamas got a dog whose original owner surrendered him to a shelter.  This is not only misleading but completely misses the point that has responsible breeders across the country cheering the coverage of this story:  The Obamas got a dog who didn't work out in his original home and so the breeder took him back.  This is what responsible breeders do - take dogs back who, for whatever reason, can no longer be kept by the original buyer.  This is why responsible breeders are not contributing to the shelter population and why, despite what radical AR activists say, all breeders are not alike.

I'm just happy the Obamas got a dog.  Dogs make good pets.  Per me. 

Ill Conceived Pet Legislation - More, More, More

HSUS to the dog breeders of Delaware:  Weer in ur stayt, writin' ur loz:

House Bill 95 - This bill adopts the recommendations of the Humane Society of the United States regarding restrictions on the large-scale for-profit dog breeding operations commonly known as “puppy mills.”

Bill includes dog limits, how often breeders must take their dogs to the Vet, age restrictions, Vet approval required to breed, no back-to-back litters and more.  

Individual judgement of the responsible, experienced breeder?  86 that.  We're going with the HSUS!  True, they're not dog breeders or even a veterinary organization but surely HSUS knows so much about ethical dog breeding (by magic!) that its recommendations should be made into law.

Additional reading:

The Monthly National Legislation Report (alphabetical listings by state)  - March 2009

American Sporting Dog Alliance - "179 Animal Rights Anti-Dog Bills Introduced In 34 States"
 

Illinois Breeder Bill Gone Wild

Lawmakers in IL have proposed a bill to regulate dog breeders. Emphasis on regulate:

Under "Definitions":

"Sanitized" means [...] Washing all soiled surfaces with appropriate detergent solutions or disinfectant products followed by a clean water rinse that removes all organic material and mineral buildup.

How do I know if I've removed all mineral buildup? How will the inspectors determine if I've removed all mineral buildup?



"Unaltered dog" means any dog that is not spaded or neutered.

Dude, really? SPADED? Before you attempt to write a law that will impact the lives of IL citizens, you might want to, oh I don't know, figure out what the hell you're talking about.

So who needs to apply for a license?

Any person who maintains 3 or more female dogs for the purpose of the sale of their offspring must be licensed under this Act.

OK that will include most all breeders. Way to not make anyone feel left out. What does the application for the license involve (besides the non-refundable fee, natch)?


The Department must require information from the applicant that, in its judgment, will enable the Department to determine the qualifications of the applicant for license. Such information must include the location of all facilities to be used, description of facilities to be used, present and previous business connections and experience, bank and professional references [...]


Wow - that's a lot of personal information for me to hand over to the state. I hope there isn't much more. I mean, I'm not a puppy mill, I just own 3 or more intact bitches and breed a litter once in awhile.


Applicants for licensure must have their fingerprints submitted to the Illinois State Police in an electronic format that complies with the form and manner for requesting and furnishing criminal history record information as prescribed by the Illinois State Police. These fingerprints must be checked against the most current Illinois State Police and Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal history record databases. The Illinois State Police may charge applicants a fee for conducting the criminal history records check [...] The Department may require applicants to pay a separate fingerprinting fee [...]

ZOMG! This sounds kinda like I'm under arrest. And they're charging me for the privilege...



Every year the Department must conduct at least one unannounced inspection of the licensee. An inspection fee may be set by rule.

IL hearts fees.

There's lots more in this bill including how often you must take your dogs to the Vet, inability to use your own judgment on breeding (Vet's approval required, age limitations set) and provision for inspection even if you don't apply for the license but authorities say you should have applied. I interpret that to mean if animal control thinks you have 3 intact bitches, they can bust down your door and demand access to your "facility", records, dogs, etc.

Read the whole ill-begotten thing here.

IL residents can find contact info for members of the House and Senate and let them know their opinion of HB0198. The bill's primary sponsor is Rep. Fritchey and the complete list of sponsors can be found here.




State Pet Laws: Who Speaks for You?

Here is a sampling of proposed legislation affecting pet owners around the US. All bracketed additions are mine. Our representatives are elected to speak for us, their constituents. If you find the bills they are considering to be misrepresentative of your view of fair, reasonable and necessary legislation, I suggest you speak for yourself. Find your state representatives and contact them with your polite and respectful opinions.


Arkansas, Senate Bill 864 (pdf)
Sponsor: Senator Madison
Excerpts:

An owner of twelve (12) or more dogs, cats, or any combination of dogs and cats shall annually obtain a license issued by the Arkansas Agriculture Department.
[Cost of license=$250]

Twenty-four (24) or more dogs, cats, or any combination of dogs and cats is one thousand dollars ($1,000).

An official of the department, a public health or safety official, and an officer employed or appointed by an agency of the state, county, municipality, or other governmental or political subdivision of the state that is responsible for animal control operations in its jurisdiction, upon receiving a complaint or upon his or her own motion, may investigate a violation of this section during daytime hours.
The investigation may include the inspection of the dogs or cats on the premises and any place where dogs or cats are kept or maintained.

This bill allows for warrantless searches of owners' kennels and/or yards and/or homes.


Maryland, House Bill 495 (pdf)
Sponsors: Delegates Smigiel, Ali, Barkley, Bartlett, Barve, Beidle, Bronrott, Cardin, Dumais, Frush, Gilchrist, Glenn, Hubbard, Hucker, Impallaria, Kelly, Kipke, Kramer, Lee, Manno, Mathias, McComas, McConkey, McDonough, Minnick, Montgomery, Ramirez, Shewell, Stein, Valderrama, and Waldstreicher
Excerpts:

A PERSON WHO OWNS, POSSESSES, CONTROLS, OR OTHERWISE HAS CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 10 BREEDING DOGS OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS SHALL PROVIDE FOR EACH DOG:
(I) AN ENCLOSURE WITH:
1. AN INTERIOR HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE HEAD OF THE TALLEST DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE WHEN THE DOG IS IN A NORMAL STANDING POSITION; AND
2. SUFFICIENT SPACE TO ALLOW THE DOG TO TURN ABOUT FREELY, STAND, SIT, AND LIE DOWN SUCH THAT, WHEN FULLY EXTENDED, NO PART OF THE DOG’S BODY TOUCHES ANY SIDE OF THE ENCLOSURE OR ANY OTHER DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE; AND
(II) UNLESS THE DOG IS CERTIFIED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE TO BE MEDICALLY PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISE, A MINIMUM OF TWO EXERCISE PERIODS EACH DAY FOR A TOTAL OF AT LEAST 2 HOURS OF EXERCISE EACH DAY.

(2) THE EXERCISE REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1)(II) OF THIS SUBSECTION:
(I) SHALL INCLUDE REMOVING THE DOG FROM ITS PRIMARY ENCLOSURE AND ALLOWING THE DOG TO WALK FOR THE ENTIRE EXERCISE PERIOD; AND
(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL, SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

What if the "enclosure" you provide for your dogs is your home? What if you know how to use a treadmill responsibly for occasional, directly supervised exercise of your pet? What if your boss says you have to work late and you don't manage to get in the full 2 hours for each dog that day? Who is going to monitor and enforce these regulations? I have questions!


Nevada, Senate Bill 241 (pdf)
Sponsors: SENATORS BREEDEN, CARLTON, WIENER, TOWNSEND; HORSFORD, LEE, PARKS AND WOODHOUSE
Excerpts:

Legislative Counsel’s Digest:
Section 4 of this bill prohibits a person from breeding cats and dogs for sale in Nevada without first obtaining a license as a breeder from the State Department of Agriculture and makes a violation of the licensure provision a misdemeanor. Section 4 also imposes an annual $500 licensing fee on breeders. Section 5 of this bill: (1) sets forth the qualifications a person must meet to be issued a license as a breeder, including good moral character and a lack of any convictions of violating a provision of chapter 574 of NRS relating to cruelty to and care of animals; (2) requires the license to be renewed annually [...] Section 11 of this bill sets forth the duties of a breeder, including ensuring that cats or dogs he breeds and sells have all their necessary immunizations, that no cat or dog is bred for more than two litters, that each cat or dog is implanted with a microchip before it is sold and that the breeder registers each litter with the Department.

So the state of Nevada is going to determine which breeder applicants have "good moral character"? Huzzah!


New York, State Assembly Bill A05507 (summary)
Sponsor: Ball (MS)
Excerpts:

[...]change the definition of a "pet dealer"
to mean any person who engages in the
sale of more than five animals (rather than
nine) per year directly to the consumer.
The definition of "pet dealer" is also
amended such that a breeder is considered a
pet dealer if he or she sells directly to
the consumer fewer than ten animals per
year (rather than twenty five) that are
raised on the breeders residence. 

This bill is supposedly designed to regulate "puppy and kitten mills" but the definition changes seem to include just about anyone who breeds dogs or cats.


Tennessee, Senate Bill 0258 (summary)
Sponsors: Senators Jackson, Ketron
Excerpts:

A "commercial breeder" is a person who possesses or maintains at least 20 female dogs in order to sell their offspring as companion animals.
[...]
An application for a license as a commercial breeder would be made to the commissioner on a form provided by the commissioner. Each application for a license must be accompanied by a license fee based upon the following:

(1) Possessing or maintaining 20-40 adult companion animals per year, $500; or
(2) Possessing or maintaining 41-75 adult companion animals per year, $1,000.
[...]
A license would not be issued to any commercial breeder who possesses or maintains more than 75 unsterilized companion animals over the age of six months.
[...]
This bill requires each commercial breeder to file semi-annual reports containing the following information:

(1) The number of dogs or cats in the possession of the commercial breeder on the date the report is filed;
(2) The number of dogs and cats sold during the reporting period and the names and addresses of the persons to whom they were sold; and
(3) The number of dogs and cats received by the commercial breeder during the reporting period under circumstances other than purchase and the names and addresses of the persons from whom they were obtained.

The premises of a commercial breeder must be made available to the commissioner for inspection at all reasonable times. The commissioner would make or cause to be made such inspections or investigations of the premises and records as considered necessary.

This bill also contains the "good moral character" requirement for applicants. Again, I'm seeing warrantless searches and there is a provision for animal seizure as well. Turning in the names and addresses of buyers to the state seems excessively intrusive to me. Why do they want that information, how will the state use it and what steps will be taken to protect the privacy of buyers? Or will buyers' names and addresses become public information?


Additional bills affecting pet owners:

Illinois

Chicago, IL - Mandatory Spay-Neuter
HSUS support for Chicago MSN
Vote delayed due to opposition - March 23, 2009

North Carolina


Additional info:
Pet-Law - state list
SAOVA

HSUS and Anti-Pet Laws
HSUS Legislative Agenda 2009 (pdf)

The Long Arm of HSUS in NC

Although there was much coverage of the HSUS puppy mill raid and seizure of roughly 300 dogs in Wayne County, NC last month, a similar HSUS raid 3 weeks later in Lenoir County leaves some questions unanswered:

Rescuers have removed 50 dogs from a Lenoir County breeding facility after the owner was convinced that he had to shut it down.

A statement from The Humane Society of the United States said the dogs were living in substandard conditions in outdoor pens throughout the property.

Local officials inspected the property after receiving an anonymous complaint and found no evidence of intentional abuse, but the unidentified property owner voluntarily surrendered the animals.

The statement said the property owner signed a contract with local officials barring him from breeding any dogs in the future.

What I'm reading here is "anonymous complaint", "no evidence of intentional abuse", and I guess we are supposed to take the word of the HSUS regarding the "substandard conditions". And the owner was "convinced" to "voluntarily" surrender the dogs. Yes, I have questions.

In trying to find additional information, I came across this piece on WNCT but it was written by someone from the HSUS. In fact, all the articles I came across regarding this raid seemed to be taken from the HSUS statement. So does the HSUS raid NC "puppy mills" (what exactly is a "puppy mill" in legal terms?) and then report on their activities for the local news in NC now? At least they don't have their hand in legislating the rules dog owners of NC have to live by - oh wait a second:

"We will soon introduce legislation that will help to crack down on the cruel puppy mill industry in our state." [said Amanda Arrington, North Carolina state director for The HSUS.]

How soon is now?

North Carolina doesn't have a law regulating puppy mills – breeding facilities that mass produce puppies for sale. Legislation backed by Sen. Don Davis, D-Wayne, could be introduced next week, however.

Davis said the bill is still being drafted to make sure it is fair for reputable breeders, but the Humane Society of the United States, which organized Thursday's meeting, said the legislation could require oversight and a license for breeders with 20 or more adult females.

Here is a pdf of HOUSE DRH10581-RF-9. Excerpts from the House version:

• "Commercial breeder" means any person who, during any 12-month period, maintains 15 or more adult female dogs for the primary purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals.
• Prescribe the manner in which animals may be transported to and from registered or licensed premises.
• Commercial breeders shall not breed female dogs less than 18 months or more than eight years of age and shall provide adequate veterinary care to the female adult dogs and their offspring. An adult female dog shall not be bred without an annual certification from a licensed veterinarian that the dog is in suitable health for breeding.
• Commercial breeding operations shall be subject to inspection by duly appointed employees of the Department or by local animal control officers. In conducting such inspections, the Department employee or local animal control officer may inspect the records of the commercial breeder, the premises where animals are bred and maintained, and any animal used in the breeding program or their offspring. Denial of access to the commercial breeding operation shall be grounds for revocation of the commercial breeders license."

Senate Bill 460 (same bill) was introduced to the NC Senate earlier this month - pdf here.

This bill sounds alarmingly vague and intrusive. I most assuredly care about protecting dogs from cruelty but as in all things, we must respect the civil liberties we are entitled to as US citizens. We must not allow a so-called "Humane" Society to overly influence our local law enforcement agencies, our local free press and our state lawmakers. We the People are a compassionate, no kill nation of pet owners who neither need nor want a nanny state created by a fundraising group of direct-mailers. We are the real humane society.

Contact Senator Davis and let him know how you feel about this bill (current status: Referred to Commerce) and the apparent overreaching involvement of the HSUS in NC law enforcement, press, and lawmaking:

Senator Don Davis, NC Senate
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 525
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925

(919)733-5621

Don.Davis@ncleg.net

You Can't Fool Mother Nature (or Mother Nurture)

John Goodwin of the HSUS on why the Wilkes Co Pitbulls, including 19 newborn pups, needed to be summarily killed:

Goodwin said that the dogs have been bred for fighting and it would very difficult and expensive to re-train the dogs, even the puppies, so that they could be adopted.

When I consider this, along with the plethora of similar generalized statements made by Goodwin and the HSUS regarding bust dogs, I realize this is in fact rilly big news that's slipped under the radar all this time. So listen up:

Stockdog breeders, good news for you! All you have to do to breed a good working pup is to take two decent stockdogs and breed them together. Bam - you've got a guaran-damn-teed litter of solid working pups. It's easy as pie! In fact, unless you have extensive training and financial resources, it will be just about impossible to get any of these pups NOT to work stock so they could just live as someone's pet. It's been bred into them and that's that. If they're bred for work, they're a-gonna work and there ain't no stoppin' 'em. Now you know.

Same goes for you breeders of service dogs, bird dogs, working terriers - even breeders of companion dogs. This is great news for Chihuahua breeders - just take 2 Chihuahuas that don't bite and have been trained to have good house manners, breed them together and you'll get a litter of sweet, well mannered pet pups that will be trustworthy around kids for life!

It's just so simple, now that we know the innate personality traits and the learned behaviors of the parents are absolutely transferred - by magic like - to the pups. And those traits are so dyed-in-the-fur that you couldn't realistically expect to mold them - even if'n ya tries.

To think, all these years breeders have been laboring under the many "misleading claims" that each dog is an individual and the behavioral traits of the parents are not necessarily 100% reflective of the temperament you'll find in the pups. How much time has been wasted focusing on environment, socialization, early experiences, training and the human-canine bond in order to shape desired behavior in dogs. Many of us were under the impression that behavior and genetics were complex issues with all sorts of potential variables involved. I blame the internet - it teached us wrong!

Is Purebred Dog Breeding a Major Welfare Concern?

Terrierman has a post on a new report, commissioned by the RSPCA, on the health of pedigree dogs in the UK. Links to the summary report and the full 76 page report are at the end. Excerpt:

To date, breeding practices and efforts by breed societies and kennel clubs have been ineffective at protecting the welfare of many breeds of domestic dog. Therefore, to safeguard the future of pedigree dogs, changes in breeding practice are urgently required, and for some breeds more drastic measures will be needed.

Worth reading when you have some quiet time to devote to it.

The Big One That Got Away

Heard an interesting discussion on NPR's Science Friday yesterday:

Research published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that predation by humans through hunting, fishing, and gathering has had significant influences on the rate of evolutionary change in a wide variety of species. Traits such as body size and first reproductive age shift significantly in species that are 'harvested,' the authors say.

"Fishing regulations often prescribe the taking of larger fish, and the same often applies to hunting regulations," said Chris Darimont, one of the authors of the study. "Hunters are instructed not to take smaller animals or those with smaller horns. This is counter to patterns of natural predation, and now we're seeing the consequences of this management." Darimont and colleagues found that human predation accelerated the rate of observable trait changes in a species by 300 percent above the pace observed within purely natural systems, and 50 percent above that of systems subject to other human influences, such as pollution.

So basically, by removing the biggest animals from the population (of fish, Bighorn Sheep, etc.), we are speeding up evolution within those populations. It could be said we are managing the breeding programs of these animals through artificial means and causing them to select for unnatural traits. Which is kinda what has gotten us into the genetic mess we are in with purebred dogs. Granted there are very different methods and motivations at work but there is a similarity to my mind. I am not against hunting game or breeding dogs but I do think we can do both more responsibly, with an eye for the big picture. Because focusing on a set of trophy horns for the wall or winning a ribbon at a dog show seems to be leading us down the wrong path toward a dead end future.

Listen to the podcast of yesterday's Science Friday show here.

Kennel Club Unveils Worst Idea Ever

The Kennel Club has taken a lot of flack in the UK due to a backwards system of rewarding show dogs who conform to breed standards based on looks rather than health, temperament and functionality as a pet (whether that be as a lap dog, sheepdog, hunting companion, etc.). Yup, the state of purebred dogs is quite a mess thanks to the Kennel Club (and other similar organizations including the American Kennel Club). So what should be done? The Kennel Club has come up with a solution. How does this idea grab you?: Take the group responsible for the mess and give them legal authority to shut down dog breeders if they find you don't comply with their rules. Sounds like a reallyterribleawful idea? Well to be fair, the Kennel Club does say that first, it's going to review its rules. Then they want the power grab. Yeah, it still sounds dreadful to me too. And a dangerous precedent setting case if it goes into effect. Other kennel clubs may try to follow suit. Additional restricting laws may be enacted in future using the Kennel Club's legal powers as precedent.

For breeders of dogs not recognized by the Kennel Club, breeders of mixed breed dogs, breeders who rely on experience, personal judgment and veterinary consultation to determine their breeding decisions - this would be the end of your breeding programs. For pet owners who want any of the previously mentioned dogs, you'd be out of luck. And for anyone who values personal freedoms at home - so sorry.

We all want healthy, happy dogs. Starting from there, we need to address the real issues - the problems brought about by closed stud books, popular sire syndrome and dog shows just to name a few. We do not need more restrictions and definitely not more restrictions imposed by the people who dragged us into this hole. You know the saying, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." To which I would add: Do not hand out shovels to the Kennel Club!



A better idea: The Norwegian Kennel Club has a plan which advocates "recommendations, education and cooperation with the breeders and breed clubs. It is our true belief that this is far more beneficial to the dogs' health and welfare than heavy restrictions. The goal in modern dog breeding is that all dogs shall be functionally healthy, with a construction and a mentality typical to the breed, and will live a long, healthy and happy life." Well that sounds pretty good akshually. Read more here.

"Pedigree Dogs Exposed"

Last week, BBC aired an hour long documentary called "Pedigree Dogs Exposed". It's available in six segments on YouTube but I am on Bellsouth dialup and the 3 legged asthmatic hamster they've got powering their internet service just isn't turning the wheel as reliably as one might hope. Sooo, I haven't seen it. But I have been interested in the various discussions the program has prompted. Here are some worth checking out:

Vet in Harness
Cold Wet Nose
Terrierman
Pet Connection
Lassie, Get Help
Caveat