PETA Campaigns Against Dog And Cat Breeders
This billboard in New York is part of PETA’s campaign against cat and dog breeders.
Over the next few months, PETA will be posting up billboards and putting out the message that people should not buy animals from breeders or pet stores. They want to emphasize to the public that millions of animals are dying in shelters, and when a person buys a pet from a breeder or store, that means one less home for a shelter animal.
PETA says the real villains are the animal breeders. They state that breeders are contributing to the animal population epidemic in the country and are also making a profit off of it.
In response to PETA’s campaign against them, some breeders have fought back and said that responsible breeders are not the cause of animal overpopulation problems. They also said that many breeders help breed rescues and animal shelters.
Breeders have stated that PETA’s campaign does not reflect the difference between responsible breeders and backyard breeders and puppy mills. They said this is a complex issue, and PETA’s response to it is extremely black and white.
Some also said that many of the animal overpopulation problems result from people not spaying or neutering and allowing unwanted litters to be produced and irresponsible pet ownership.
Instead of PETA trying to campaign against breeders, they said animal groups and organizations should work together to help animals in shelters.
Source: PETA
(Thanks Jodi)
September 12th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
bad move on PETA’s part. they are attacking the wrong people and i don’t think the general public will buy into it. if they would have attacked puppy mills and pet stores, they could have had a good chance to educate, but people who have bought from a breeder (including the more than too many from byb’s) generally have a good experience and think their breeder (no matter how crappy in reality) is great, not evil. heck, they also blew a chance to have people like me (animal welfare) behind them on this if they would have gone after the right people. as it is, i just find their billboard offensive.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
good for PETA! it’s a sad day when people (especially the ‘animal loving breeders’) are so blind, ignorant, or deluded that they can’t make the connection that they are THE PROBLEM, and need to be told via a media campaign.
i think it’s really more likely that just like the major puppy mills, small puppy mills (aka ‘hobby breeders’) don’t give a damn about animals and do it only for the money and some kind of twisted kick from controlling the animals. really - breeding dogs is only one step removed from being a dog fighter.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 write-off for a giant walk-in freezer. In sworn testimony during the January 2007 animal-cruelty trial of two PETA employees, a PETA manager acknowledged that the organization has a walk-in freezer for the purpose of storing dead pets. She also acknowledged that PETA contracts with a Norfolk-area crematory service to dispose of the dead bodies, which measure over a ton each month.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I think after the recent publicity PETA’s gotten (collecting animals from veterininarians with the promise of finding them homes, only to kill them a few minutes later), their credibility on any subject is pretty much non-existent.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Straybaby, I agree. A realistic program to crack down on BYB’s and puppy mills would be an excellent start to put an end to the problem.
I have to admit that I wonder about those pets sold by reputable breeders; do their offspring get rehomed to people who become backyard breeders? The reputable breeder isn’t directly responsible for second and third and nth generation pets……but, let’s face it, indirectly they are.
PETA needs to reorganize. Too many questionable things happening.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
“The reputable breeder isn’t directly responsible for second and third and nth generation pets……but, let’s face it, indirectly they are.”
Many reputable breeders spay and neuter the animals they let go out to the public.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
“small puppy mills (aka ‘hobby breeders’) don’t give a damn about animals and do it only for the money and some kind of twisted kick from controlling the animals.”
Are we meaning the same terms? Hobby breeders ARE JUST the breeders who are doing it because they love the historic breeds (some dating back thousands of years) and want to preserve them. They are not in it for a buck. Comparing that to dog fighting is extremist, but so is PETA.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
PETA goes to dog shows and lets well cared for and well loved dogs out of their crates to get lost or hit by cars. PETA has a goal of ending all pet ownership for everyone permanently. They harm animals to make a point and destroy other people’s property. They are doing nothing to shut down puppy mills but are attacking responsible breeders who take back any dog they have bred at any time. Responsible breeders who are working to eliminate animal diseases and who give people the joy of owning beautiful healthy animals of their choice. If PETA spent the money they get on helping real animals the shelters would not have so many pets euthanized. The money does not go to animals it goes to their nutty agenda. I am all for helping shelter pets and breed rescues. PETA has nothing to do with that. Just think of a life where having your beloved pets would be illegal. Well that’s what PETA is aiming for.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Lynn says:
I have to admit that I wonder about those pets sold by reputable breeders; do their offspring get rehomed to people who become backyard breeders? The reputable breeder isn’t directly responsible for second and third and nth generation pets……but, let’s face it, indirectly they are.
Have you ever seen a reputable breeder’s contract? Spay/neuter is required if the dog is sold as a young puppy, or already done if it is an adult. Registration is limited, meaning if the dog is bred the offspring can not be registered with AKC, or registration papers are held until proof of sterilization is provided from the vet. Breeders guarantee their dogs against disease and do genetic testing on the dogs they breed. Any reputable breeder will take the dog back and re-home themselves if it doesn’t work out. Backyard breeders do not get their dogs from reputable breeders. They come from other BYBs, pet stores and mills.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Sylvia I totally agree with you peta’s goal is to stop all pet ownership. They are not about animal care they are about pet extinction. Iam involved in the puppy mill issue and the people I’ve met from peta have their own agenda.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Anonymous, I agree with you & you are 100% right. Once you buy a dog from a reputable breeder she is your friend for life. You don’t live up to your contract or mistreat that baby either she or someone like me who has her dogs will get that baby back & they will get there money back. I have pure breed & mixed breeds & will always have at least 1 Eskie. A lot of people who think they have pure breeds really have puppy mill or byb dogs & somehow they even get papers but as far as I know they don’t get away with showing them. Put a pure breed from a reputable breeder next to what some people claim to be pure breed & you can really see the difference.
I hope there will always be reputable breeders because no breed should ever die out.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
lynn, many byb’s get their dogs at pet stores, other byb’s and auctions. a small percentage of byb dogs prob are from reputable breeders who didn’t follow up/lost contact with a puppy buyer, or were outright lied to. we get wanna be byb’s calling the rescues looking for intact pure bred dogs!
PETA is not going to get fashion plate franny who wants a trendy pocket dog puppy to adopt at a shelter by attacking breeders. ain’t gonna happen. nor are they going to stop that same person from re-selling the dog once the LL finds out about her impulse purchase. and the next owner from selling or passing it on when it doesn’t paper train fast enough. by the 4th owner, they are just giving it away and the 5th owner turns it in because it’s a reactive unsocialized fear biter that still isn’t paper trained. and then there’s all the perfectly lovely mid-to -large sized 7-12mo dogs that get turned in because their owner didn’t train the dog. if those dogs had been sold by a REPUTABLE breeder, they wouldn’t be sitting in a cage. only the ones from byb’s etc do for the most part. many RB chip their dogs incase they should ever end up in a shelter, they can retrieve them.
PETA is missing the real problem in their agenda blindness.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Lynn obviously has done no homework at all. I not only have seen reputable breeders contracts I have one. The breeders I know not only screen and rescreen prospective owners but turn many away. The pup must be neutered by a certain date or it must be returned. No AKC papers without proof from a vet that a dog is neutered. All dogs to be bred have the hips xrayed, eyes screened regularly by a dog ophthamologist, hearts checked and depending on the breed other necessary health screenings. Dogs that may produce a problem are neutered and carefully placed in a good home. All dogs are to be returned to the breeder, at any age, if they can no longer be kept. These dogs do not end up in shelters, mills or other people’s backyards. Good breeders are proud of their beautiful dogs and good kennel names. Maybe Lynn should contact some national breed clubs to get the facts. Then she might not be so gung ho on PETA because all the laws they are trying to change PROMOTE puppy mill breeding and will possibly eliminate good breeders. I am all for adopting from shelters too. I have had both rescue and purebreed dogs in my life and loved every one of them equally. Anonymous and Thomas you have the correct facts. Too bad some other people never bother to find things out for before passing incorrect judgements.
PS Lynn, All national breed clubs run by responsible purebreed breeders have their own rescues too. They take the puppy mill and unwanted dogs in and find good homes for them. Lots of work and expense but worth every penny. Are you part of a rescue group?
September 12th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Slyvia you are 100% right.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Reputable breeders are not the ones causing the “population” problem. They have spay/neuter contracts on every pet puppy that leaves their home, and they will always take back and rehome animals if for some reason the owner can no longer keep it. No, the ones causing the problems are those that bring a pet into their homes, fail to bother getting it spayed or neutered, then allow it to be bred. The innocent products of this sort of carelessness are the ones you most often find in the shelters, not dogs produced by the responsible breeder. Other shelter dogs are the victims of irresponsible owners that allow them to run loose until they get finally get picked up by animal control, or dogs brought home on impulse and are then ignored until their behavior has gotten totally out of control. PETA is an extremist organization that wants to eliminate ALL pet ownership, so please don’t buy into this line of propaganda.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
I’m staying out of this fray, except to propose my own campaign and billboard:
“PETA *KILLS* shelter pit bulls’ chances.”
September 12th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I am very torn on this issue. I always try to talk people into adopting from a shelter, but the fact is that there are people who are in love with a specific breed. I don’t think there is anything wrong with responsible breeding as long as the breeder ensures that all the pets get responsible homes and treats the animals very well. The only thing wrong with it is that of course, there are so many dogs who need homes, you would think that no one would need to buy a dog. But this isn’t true when there is a regional/local mismatch between the supply of dogs in shelters and demand.
Where I live (The Wash DC area), there is plenty of competition for small dogs that come into shelters, specifically, young healthy ones. Lots of people live in condos and smaller homes where a large dog is not practical, or they don’t have a yard. So the small dogs in shelters who are young-ish and in good health get snapped up. Getting on a breed rescue list and waiting for a fairly young, fairly healthy dog of a desired small breed to come available — well, good luck with that. You might be able to get one if you are willing to drive to Wisconsin or Ohio.
Yes, it would be nice if all the people who want to adopt a dog would adopt whatever is available — even if they are older dogs, sick dogs, larger dogs — but some people just aren’t up to that right away. Such people who have just gone through the process of nursing an elderly chronically ill pet over a long period who are wiped out financially and emotionally.
What we really should focus on is shutting down puppy mills, not going after all breeders including responsible home breeders.
Stefani
September 12th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Sorry, Anonymous was not intentional.
Let’s not pile on Lynn for asking a question. Peta has done a really good job of bashing breeders to the public, and if someone has never dealt with a breeder, they may not know the real deal. However, I’d be willing to bet AsocialApe has never met a reputable breeder, never been to a show, never visited a kennel club and never will. I am certain he just blindly follows Peta’s extremist rantings without gathering the facts or asking questions if he truly believes that reputable breeders are one step away from dog fighters. It’s not about money or control. It’s about preserving and protecting the breed, producing quality animals of sound mind and body, and being responsible for them throughout their entire life. That doesn’t fit in with Peta’s mission of ending pet ownership though. Commercial breeders (puppy mills) are protected by the USDA, making them impossible for Peta to touch. Hobby breeders are an easy target.
Just want to add to Sylvia’s comment; All reputable breed clubs have a code of ethics. Members have to agree to specific standards for breeding rising and selling dogs along with sportsmanship. Peta has ethics in name only. Breeders live by ethics.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Oh, but I’d also like to ask, has anyone met or spoken with a breeder - commercial, hobby, puppy-mill, or back yard - who admits to being an IRresponsible or DISreputable one? I certainly haven’t. No, I don’t think all breeders are disreputable, but I think many of them are irresponsible. Why? Because breeders facilitate the addition of hundreds of thousands of animals to the “pet” population annually, insisting all the while that it is their right to do so. And perhaps it is their right, but is it the *right* thing to do - considering the obscene number of dogs and cats destroyed by animal shelters each year? Because NO ONE considers themselves to be an irresponsible or disreputable breeder?
September 12th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I couldn’t agree more with Nancy and Sylvia. On top of that, most RB’s barely break even with their breeding programs. We invest most of the money right back in to the programs. If there is any extra, which is rare, ours goes in to helping out our local TNR program, donated to our low-no cost spay and neuter programs for materials, buy items for shelters that they need and fund breed rescues. So not only do we make sure our own animals don’t end up in a pound, we make sure any of the animals in our breed stay out of pounds so we end up taking care of the puppy mill, pet store and byb’s animals that they usually don’t microchip. And we help out other breed rescues as well. I could go on and on. Get rid of the reputable breeders you will be seriously crippling animal recues, more animals will be in the pound, etc… Many of the dogs and cats in the shelters that usually make up the majority of euthanized animals are unadoptable due to thier personality, but they don’t want to advertise that since it would’nt be as large of a number wich wouldn’t help their pet ownership ending goal which they openly advertise. Also along with the bill they are trying to help pass, AB1634, not only does it harm reputable breeders and condone/help puppy mills and pet stores but it allows animal testing. Very hypocritical bunch. I guess they will back anything that comes along as long as it help their own twisted agenda.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Hey PETA….
Do something about TOXIC PET FOODS!!!!!!!
September 12th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
The error of thought is that people think those of us who opt for a purebred would get a random bred animal if the purebreds were not available. That’s not true. Adopting from a shelter is often a good thing, but it’s not always the best fit in terms of personality, size, and assorted traits that work for some people but not for others. Some of our shelter dogs have have genetic problems that a good breeder would have screened for. I’ve also pulled a heartworm positive dog, something we would not have gotten from a good breeder. People gush about how wonderful a mixed breed is when you get the best of all the breed traits. Well, sometime you get the worst of them and that’s a problem. Our girl had dominance without patience; alertness without sociability; territoralism without courage. She was a wreck of a dog and had horrible dysplasia as well. She was not a fun dog. (I miss her. She got cancer)
In areas where the shelters are filled with large dogs, do you think the people who want small ones should just ‘make do’ even though they will never really want the large ones?
The label of responsible or irresponsible is not one that the breeder gets to pick. It’s the label we owners/buyers give them and they have to earn the title of being a good / responsible breeder. As the prospective owner, the responsibility is YOURS to do business only with those breeders who meet the higher standards. If people stop buying from the irresponsible breeders, the BYBs, the millers, then those people will stop breeding. Takes two parties to make this mess ….seller/buyer. Both groups need to be held to higher standards. Don’t enable bad breeders …encourage the good ones.
PETA …. kind of a cult or a money grubbing organization with no moral leg to stand on.
They’ve hidden it now but in the early days of the Internet I thought I’d join them so I researched their online mission statements. There is was in plain sight. They want the extinction of all domestic species of animals. Someday, when we finally have pet over population under control (and we will) PETA will have to find some other flag to wave. Right now they hide behind the populist cry to stop the killing of shelter pets. It’s a worthy goal, but PETA wants all dogs and cats dead so having everyone go for a sterilized shelter pet will get them to their goal.
So ask yourself …. if we get everyone to stop breeding animals and there is no more pet over population problem to fill the shelters, where will we get our companions from in the decades that follows. Obviously, come that glorious day when there are no longer any animals languishing in shelters (demand has exceeded supply) only three options remain:
1 We support responsible breeding. (My first choice)
2. We no longer have any companion animals. (Unthinkable!)
3. We get all our animals from countries not under the thumb of AR groups and thereby lose all possibility of encouraging responsible breeding and humane animal husbandry. (Horrible!)
BTW, animals are already being transported around the US from areas of high supply/low demand to areas of high demand/low supply. They are also bringing in larger numbers, especially of small dogs, from Mexico and the Caribbean …mostly it’s ‘rescue’ now. Soon people in those other countries will see $ to be made and it will become a for-profit business.)
Brains, people …. use them.
www.petakillsanimals.org
September 12th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Stefani- There are a lot of people that educate themselves and do their homework before they buy a pet. And they are not making headlines. They want a well bred pet with a line of healthy sound dogs behind him. They want a family companion with good and predictable temperament correct for their breed. They want a relationship with the breeder and they want a guarantee. This is why breeders have waiting lists for puppies before they are even on the ground. While some people are happy with a shelter dog, sometimes a well bred pet is better option, especially if the family has small children or special needs. No one should question their ethics, condemn them or attempt to limit their choices.
Here’s one example, of how flawed Peta’s logic is. I have a Siberian cat, purebred from a reputable breeder. He was neutered already when I bought him. He stays indoors and he is beautiful and fits in great with the dogs, but that is not the reason I sought out this breed. They have different dander than other cats. Many people that are allergic to cats can live with this breed. I found this out by doing research. Then I established a relationship with breeders. I found them through their club referrals. My husband is allergic to cats but has no problems living with our Siberian. We even went to a breeder and had contact with her cats before we decided to give it a try. She allowed us to test with her cats even though she did not have one to sell us. Why because she is a good steward for her breed. So you see, buying this cat in no way took a home away from a homeless cat at the shelter, as Peta would have you believe. We would simply not be able to own a cat at all if all if all that were available were rescues or feral cats. We would just be missing out on the joy of having a cat to love.
One size does not fit all, but Peta seeks to limit choices by making people feel guilty. It’s is wrong on many levels. People that want to adopt should, and do every day. People that can’t, or for what ever reason, don’t want a poorly bred pet should not adopt simply because it is politically correct. Everyone is entitled to make the right decision for themselves, their family and their lifestyle. Not everyone is equipped to deal with the baggage of a rescue. And yes, most have some issue to overcome, even if they adept well to the new home. Without a reputable breeder or breed rescue standing behind the animal to take it back, what other recourse do people have? Pet shops and BYBs do not take returns. This is why impulse buys, free to good homes, and pets with owners that have not done their research end up homeless in shelters. Not because of breeders that do everything possible to make sure an animal gets a good home and stays in it or willingly accepts it back if it’s not a good fit for all. It’s not easy to get a pet from a good breeder. I am one so I know first hand. I have turned people away and it’s not easy because you know they will not listen and the dog they do buy will probably come back to me or another club member to foster and re-home someday. There really is nothing I can do about that. I can not control the choices people make, I can only control where and with whom my dogs go. As long as you have the cash you can get one form a BYB in the news paper or plunk down the plastic at the pet shop. This is really where Peta should be barking if they really cared about homeless pets. They don’t. Think about it. The agenda is ending breeding, not making sure pets get homes. Actions speak louder than sound bites.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I happen to be a very reputable [cat bengals] breeder. Or I was for 12 years. I always spayed and nuetered before they ever left My house. and I have turned down plenty of people if i didn’t think it was the right situation. Also, there is no money in it like people think. and cat shows cost a lot of money, but if you are breeding for the best type in an animal you should show if you can.
I do a ton of rescues. I have more rescues than I do My own cats. and I help feed half the animals in the neighborhood.
I also worked for the vet where PETA came in and took our Mama cat and kittens and then Killed them. I was at the trial, I saw all the horrible pictures.
There is a puppy mill here in town but they don’t bother with that. They’d rather go out and get their own puppies and kittens and kill them. And dump them in the garbadge.
And this is what they do with all their money. Put up billboards and do stupid things instead of helping animals. You should see their office in Va. Beach, A beautiful all glass , waterfront , 4 million doller building.
Yes, look up- peta kills animals on the web. it’s all true.
And yes, there are some very good breeders out there.
Peta wants no one to own a pet. They are mean, and dangerous.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Painting all dog and cat breeders black will not help anyone but big businesses that abuse animals.
http://www.insidehls.com/faq.htm
September 12th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
There is no such thing as a GOOD breeder !!!!!
September 12th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Pit Bull Lover says:
September 12th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
sure all breeders do think they are reputable or have the right etc, BUT, the reality is in their actions. Hobby breeders contribute a very small number to the hundreds of thousands of pets born each year. many do not even breed every year. or every other year for that matter. there are *guidelines* when looking for a reputable breeder and their actions speak for their reputation, not necessarily what comes out of their mouth ;) many of the reputable Dal breeders held off on breeding when the breed was in such disney state. and they are the ones along with rescue still cleaning up the mess. the breed club worked very hard to save the breed from the public and irresponsible breeders. unfortunately, it doesn’t look at this point like the pit bulls have the same support system behind them. there’s a few other breeds that also need the breed club and reputable breeders to really step it up as their breeds are on the slippery exploitation slope (the breed clubs may be stepping up, but they just haven’t gotten a handle on it yet) the reputable breeders don’t just breed because they have the right nor do they sell to just anyone that feels they have a right to have such and such a dog. so i think they do step back and ask is it the right thing. in fact, i believe they do that before they decide to do any breeding because that is the whole point. is this the right thing to do, how does this breeding better the breed etc.
there’s nothing that will hurt a breed more than popularity and greed, imo. and that doesn’t lie at the feet of responsible breeders, that lies at the feet of the public in general.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
theAsocialApe. . .
The “hobby” or responsible breeder makes no money and often loses money. I know as I am a breeder because I show and adore my breed. In NINE years I have had a grand total of four litters which was 10 puppies total. I know where every single puppy is right now, and have become good friends with all of their owners. I have a contract that I will take any of the pups back and any time for any reason and that they are required to release them only to me if they choose to get rid of them. We health test the adults and pups, these pups are born in our bedrooms and live their first weeks there. We very carefully screen our puppy buyers and only sell to those we feel are the absolute best home for our babies. All of my hobby breeder friends are the same. We are not the problem. We ADORE our dogs above just about anything in life. . . they are our passion.
If a dog of our breed is in a shelter, they have many breed contacts to call to come and rescue them. Our rescue program is very good all across the nation. And even to get a rescue dog is very hard to qualify.
If you condemn responsible hobby breeders, where would you like to buy a puppy? A shelter? But those dogs come from somewhere, too. . . usually mills or backyard breeders . Or maybe like PETA do you think pet dogs should cease to exist?
September 12th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Baaboo says:
September 12th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
There is no such thing as a GOOD breeder !!!!!
You’re absolutely right. Reputable breeders are not good, they’re GREAT!!! The others … not good.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I had never thought about this as an issue before. I am not sure what to think now. If people want a pedigree cat I guess they are not going to be the ones to take a mongrel home are they?
September 12th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Re:
“Stefani- There are a lot of people that educate themselves and do their homework before they buy a pet. And they are not making headlines. They want a well bred pet with a line of healthy sound dogs behind him. They want a family companion with good and predictable temperament correct for their breed. They want a relationship with the breeder and they want a guarantee. This is why breeders have waiting lists for puppies before they are even on the ground. While some people are happy with a shelter dog, sometimes a well bred pet is better option, especially if the family has small children or special needs. No one should question their ethics, condemn them or attempt to limit their choices. ”
I agree with these statements. I have said that I support responsible breeding, for those who want a purebred animal. I understand the need that this fulfills, not everyone can take a shelter dog.
And as I pointed out, in the metro area were I live, it is hard to get a healthy young or middle aged adult small dog, especially one of a specific breed, from out of rescue. No, I don’t believe that those people who want or need a small dog should just adopt a large one and deal with it. A lot of people can’t — they live in condos, have no yard, etc.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Liz, I can only speak for myself, but I have both. I know other people do too. I don’t show any more & have never had a litter in my 61 years even thou I don;t have them fixed until I know they are not going to be showed. My mixed breeds are always fixed after their 2 or 3 heat. As long as I have the money (to care for them old & sick) & the room for them to have a wonderful life I will always have both. I love them all but God willing I will always have a pure breed Eskie.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Pit Bull Lover- I can certainly understand your anguish given your breed. Pit bulls have been exploited like no other breed. Also they were never accepted by the AKC so they do not have the benefit of a sanctioned parent club. I don’t even know if there was ever an attempt to go in that direction with the breed. Do you? I’m not sure the answer to this very complex problem is adopting out this breed to people that are ill-equipped to handle the dog or his reputation. We have to face reality and understand that if John-q public wants a beagle for a family pet we should not expect that he is suitable to be a pit bull owner. It is not his fault that we have more pit bulls than suitable homes. He does not want or need a Pit bull and you can’t make that choice for anyone else. You can not adopt your way out of decades of irresponsibility. I just don’t see how a valid argument can be made that no one should breed beagles when pits are dieing in shelters. In order to fix a problem you need to understand it and Peta does not understand the problem at all.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:27 am
opps I came up Anonymous again.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:52 am
PETA’s (Ingrid Newkirk’s) position that “pit bulls” in shelters, and the breeds and its mixes in general, should be euthanized, banned, and no longer bred, is tied to their (her) assertion that there are plenty of shelter dogs waiting to be adopted, so people can just select some other kind of dog or lovable mutt when bullies no longer exist. Who, but criminals, animal abusers (dogfighters), and the misguided would want one of these dogs, anyway?
*I* would. I love these silly, smiling, affectionate, muscular, short-haired, wiggly, whip-tailed, blocky-headed dogs. I understand the devotion to particular breeds, and I appreciate those who care to selectively and responsibly breed for the betterment and continuation of breed characteristics. I don’t fault anyone for loving and preferring certain breeds, because I feel that way myself about “pit bulls” (and bull terriers, which I’ve not yet had the pleasure of owning). Luckily - *and* unfortunately - there is no shortage of pit bulls, so my criticism of those who breed them is particularly harsh.
I’m not against the breeding of dogs or breeders, in general. I’m against puppy mills, backyard breeders, irresponsible owners whose dogs procreate by “accident,” and the continued overbreeding of popular dogs for profit. Not everyone nor every breed is part of an area’s pet overpopulation problem, that’s true, but there are entirely too many people who don’t seem to recognize - or care - that there is a problem at all. To them, breeding animals is a selfish act, and not about the societal “greater good” or the welfare of the animals.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:19 am
All these “good idea” organizations - such as PETA, the Humane Society - now as bad as the killer corporates… I keep telling people watch how they are infiltrated, follow the money, the interlocking directorates… back to the same people who have demonstrated so little respect for life on this planet - incl. human life.
We’re talking the same people who secretly can’t wait for DNA techniques to produce designer people… much less designer animals, and what we’ve seen happen to cattle, has been happening with pets, and already with humans (controlling the cloning humans or experiments with animals and humans in the West easily handled by western companies who take their labs to the East… where do you think e.g., Genetic Savings and Clone - the pet cloning people - went?)
September 13th, 2007 at 1:36 am
I will take any opportunity provided to castigate PETA and Newkirk for their hypocritical and cynical position on pit bulls. But the bulk of my statements on breeding, in this particular thread/story, however, excluded them. The “pit bull problem” is vast, currently unmanageable, and I don’t see an effective or fair solution in sight. The issue is further complicated by their shelter-overwhelming numbers, the high percentage of pit bull owners who are irresponsible and/or criminal, and the seemingly inevitable reports of bites/attacks/fatalities by poorly bred, badly trained, and carelessly kept dogs. A fearful and misinformed public, egged on by sensational headline-/news-seeking media, and compounded by politicians making names for themselves with breed-specific legislation, make saving and redeeming the reputation of the pit bull type dogs an uphill battle.
One thing I can’t state emphatically enough is this: I definitely DON’T think pit bulls are suitable for everyone, no matter how many of the dogs wait - and die - in animal shelters. They are simply too many, and too many of those are so aggressive and undersocialized - nevermind poorly bred or unwisely crossbred - that it’s not realistic or safe to save them.
But you’re correct, just as PETA (and Newkirk) assert - wrongly - that a beagle could be a perfect adoption alternative for a pit bull lover like me, only an unrealistic - and dangerous - loon would propose to a person or family for whom a beagle is the ideal dog, that they should instead adopt a pit bull. Yikes!
September 13th, 2007 at 1:46 am
I am just not sure it is beneficial to persuade people to make that decision based on the societal “greater good†or the welfare of the animals in general.
It is more important that they select a pet that is the right one for them and commit to caring for it as a family member or not have a pet at all.
Reputable breeders do not breed in line with popular breed trends or even try to fill the demands for a particular breed. Often irresponsible people become BYBs because they see an opportunity to make a quick buck. Then the rest of us are left to clean up the mess. Real education, not extremist campaigns are by far the best way to turn the tide.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:10 am
Pit Bull Lover, I agree with you. It is so sad what is happening to the Pit Bulls. I have 3 friends with pits, 1-man, wife & 2young kids, 2_ his mother & father, 3-a very old women on my MOW route. All 3 dogs are welcome at my house anytime & I would babysit them anytime. I’m am very potective with my babies but these Pits are wonderful. They worry about their dogs all the time, and get just as mad as you with what is happening. Things for the Pit Bulls seem to just keep going down hill. It’s not fair, I know Pits are good dogs, It’s what people are doing to them.
I am very against puppy mills & will stand up against them anywhere & anytime. I live in a state (PA.) that is one of the top states for puppy mills. A lot of really good people stand up against them but we are just not winning yet. Going to call it a night now, talk to you again later.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:34 am
I’ve just now come back to this topic and see all the references to me in response to my posting on 09-12-2007 at 4:58PM. My rebuttals:
To Traci 4:59PM “Many reputable breeders spay and neuter the animals they let go out to the public.â€
I grant you that MOST reputable breeders [by my definition] will have spayed or neutered the animal before releasing it to the new family. Not ALL of them do. In fact, many reputable breeders sell pets before the pet is old enough to have this surgery performed. True, there may be a contract involved, promising that the new family will have this surgery by a particular date, but who’s enforcing it? Perhaps SOME reputable breeders follow up, though I seriously doubt you can say that ALL reputable breeders do.
This brings up the definition of what is a “reputable breeder.†This topic is an old discussion and the definition is still shaggy.
Anonymous at 5:45PM: “Have you ever seen a reputable breeder’s contract?â€
I certainly have seen breeder contracts. A number of them, in fact. However, there are an alarming number of people who will spend the money and buy from a reputable breeder, sign the contract, and then breed the pet when it becomes of age, and sell the offspring to people who don’t care about AKC registration. So what do you have? A breeder with all the best intentions who believed the purchaser would honor the contract. But didn’t.
Some reputable breeders diligently follow up. But I know that not all of them do.
To Straybaby 6:28 PM: Yes, I’m aware of these things.
To Sylvia 6:30PM:
1. “Lynn obviously has done no homework at all.†Wrong. Lynn has done a lot of “homework†on this for the past 30 years.
2. “Maybe Lynn should contact some national breed clubs to get the facts.†Over the years I’ve been very well connected to many breed clubs and rescue org’s.
3. “Then she might not be so gung ho on PETA because…†WHERE ON EARTH DID YOU READ THAT I WAS GUNG HO ON PETA? Go back and reread my statements.
4. “All national breed clubs run by responsible purebreed breeders have their own rescues too.†Don’t assume that I know nothing. I’m very aware of what goes on.
To trucorgi at 7:32PM: “Let’s not pile on Lynn for asking a questionâ€
Actually I wasn’t asking the question in order to get educated; rather I was posting my point in question form for the readers’ consideration. [But thanks, trucorgi, for your intervention.]
To Pit Bull Lover at 7:38 pm: “No, I don’t think all breeders are disreputable, but I think many of them are irresponsible. Why? Because breeders facilitate the addition of hundreds of thousands of animals to the “pet†population annually, insisting all the while that it is their right to do so.â€
One point I’d like to make: If you trace the dog from a BYB, and the pet is indeed a purebred, then it is only logical to assume that somewhere in the ancestry a “reputable breeder†broke the code of ethics, unwittingly or not [e.g., not following through on new ownership, etc.].
To Pit Bull Lover’s comment I would like to propose a wild, half-baked idea to help the overpopulation problem and to test the sincerity of breeders. Hang on to your hats, as this is simply in the bare bones concept stage. What if, just WHAT IF, all reputable breeders adhered to a one year moratorium on breeding starting on January 1, 2008? Just to prove that they have the breed’s best interests at heart……and to help weed out back yard breeders. If all reputable breeders did this for just one year starting on the date shown above, then we would know that any animal born in the year 2008 is the product of a BYB.
Like I said, the idea needs brainstorming and work.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:36 am
I think PETA should be focusing more on factory farm conditions which are immoral. Anyone who has seen the inside of a factory farms and has empathy should agree. There is a video at http://meat.org that shows these conditions.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:56 am
PETA’s been around since the 1980’s and if any of you are old enough to remember the work they did back then, you will recall that they did wonderful things.
Like any organization that is saturated with many different interest groups. It’s my personal view that over the years they have splintered into many different directions.
As in business, you must find your niche and perfect it. My gut tells me they’ve been so busy chasing off in so many directions that they haven’t really looked at their structure. I see of their more recent actions as questionable and I wonder how long it will take before too many loose canons fire.
But then, who can expect them to put reviewing a mission statement on a higher priority level than running out and saving an animal?
I think the time has come for PETA to take a good look at where they are headed, to do better tactical planning rather than react without solid strategy.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:15 am
Lynn says: I would like to propose a wild, half-baked idea to help the overpopulation problem and to test the sincerity of breeders. Hang on to your hats, as this is simply in the bare bones concept stage. What if, just WHAT IF, all reputable breeders adhered to a one year moratorium on breeding starting on January 1, 2008? Just to prove that they have the breed’s best interests at heart……and to help weed out back yard breeders. If all reputable breeders did this for just one year starting on the date shown above, then we would know that any animal born in the year 2008 is the product of a BYB.
Interesting concept but it will be met with a chilly reception.
First, why do we need to “test the sincerity of breeders� This is subjective. Breeding is not a crime. And it is up to the puppy buyer to decide if his breeder is sincere. Ask questions. Get references. Do your homework.
Who are we supposed to be “proving†this to? Peta?
Why is it a reputable breeder’s responsibility to “weed out back yard breeders� We know who they are. Look at the classified section in your local paper and you’ll know too.
“then we would know that any animal born in the year 2008 is the product of a BYB.â€
And what would we gain by having this information? Do you think the shelters will be any less full if reputable breeders don’t breed? We already know there will be no affect because our dogs aren’t there, so what is to be proven or gained? And how exactly do you think this will “help the overpopulation problem�
And what are all the breeders supposed to say to someone that calls and says “I just had to put my dog to sleep. I am looking for a puppy� Are we supposed to send them to the mills or tell them we’ll put them on a year + waiting list because we imposed a moratorium on ourselves to prove a point to Peta? We already know that there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that they will find a puppy in their breed of choice at the shelter, and if someone is calling a reputable breeder for a specific breed they probably don’t want a mix.
Lynn- why do you think reputable breeders can keep say half a dozen intact dogs in the same house and never have an accidental litter? Because we are responsible. Why does the neighbor down the street have one pet that is constantly pregnant and running loose? You can’t legislate responsibility, but you can educate people on responsible pet ownership in a positive non-judgmental way. If Peta spent their time and money doing this as a public service instead of demonizing responsible breeders, trying to pass unconstitutional laws and running around naked, they might get some respect. As it is I think the general public is tired of their extremist stance, whacky stunts, constant fund raising and photo ops. Not to mention the hypocrisy of it all. That meat locker testimony was a real eye opener for many who were under the impression their motives were in the interest of animal welfare. Let’s have a moratorium on them.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:22 am
A simple way to put puppy mills out of business is to let the I.R.S. handle it. Make profiting from the sale of cats and dogs illegal. That would separate the wheat from the chaffe right there. Yes, there would still be ‘accidents’ and not all nonprofit breeders would be top-notch, but it would put the mills and for profit BYB’s out of business.
September 13th, 2007 at 7:12 am
trucorgi wrote: “I’d be willing to bet AsocialApe has never met a reputable breeder, never been to a show, never visited a kennel club and never will. I am certain he just blindly follows Peta’s extremist rantings without gathering the facts or asking questions if he truly believes that reputable breeders are one step away from dog fighters.”
::smirk::
um. no. AsocialApe understands simple math. Follow -
Too many dogs exist.
Breeders of all stripes make more.
Now even more too many dogs exist.
all the statements about puppy millers ‘loving the breed’ is evidence that they’re a twisted lot. the breed isn’t alive, capable of joy and suffering. the breed is a set of standards some wanker came up with. so the hobby puppy millers, love a set of standards, and don’t care how many animal suffer that they might get bragging rights of having forced a dog to have N puppies until BYB lady got one that was really really close to the standard!
people that are actually kind, whether they’re in PETA, HSUS, or whatever, love _animals_ not breeds.
so keep up your self serving breeder apologist statements trucorgi, but i know, and i’m pretty sure _you_ know, that you’re FOS, and know that you and your ilk are part of the problem, and what you’re doing is immoral, and wholly self serving.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Two responses to Lynn:
!. Many breeders do not breed a litter every year or even every two. If all reputable breeders suspended any breedings for a year no one would notice any difference at all. The mills would go on breeding away, people who want a well bred dog will wait on a list not adopt a shelter animal, and nothing would change. Since the laws PETA is trying to enact promote mills and restrict reputable breeders things might even get worse. One thing we might agree on is the question of why the AKC knowingly does business with big mills nowadays. That’s how the papers go to BYB and mill dogs. Not through breeder/show people.
2. What great things did PETA do in the eighties? Pour red paint on women wearing fur? Break into labs and set animals that could not possibly fend for themselves loose? Make terroristic threats against people? Yeah great. Give us the locations and addresses of the PETA run shelters or the names of the PETA run rescues please so we can see how many animals they are keeping alive. With all the money they collect from the naive they must have at least a few shelters we can visit. Not just the glass palace they headquarter themselves in. By the way are they going to shelter and care for the poor dogs Michael Vick tortured so they will not have to be euthanized? I would think so if they are saving lives.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Pet over-population is not so much a breeder issue as it is a responsible ownership issue. There was a published survey a number of years ago on where most “AKC” purebred dogs originate from. Guess what? ONLY ABOUT 6% OF THE TOTAL PUREBRED POPULATION COMES FROM “BREEDERS” (both hobbyists and puppy mills). The VAST majority of purebreds come from the average single pet owner trying to make a quick buck on puppies, or who want to show their kids the “miracle of birth”. PETA could put all “breeders” out of business and it would not even put a dent in the problem! Do your research people, and stop placing blame where it doesn’t belong.
To Lynn: You are lumping irresponsible breeders in with responsible ones. If a breeder does not follow up on their puppies/contracts, they do not qualify as “reputable”. Since most purebreds come from Joe Public, you’d have to go back probably 25 generations or more to find a reputable breeder in most pedigrees. What is the root cause of purebred and mixed breed over-population? I’d say it’s an even combination of greed and ignorance. Address those things and you have a chance of making a real difference in the problem.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Just this year I stopped being a Peta member. The incident about killing puppies and throwing them in a dumpster was the last straw. Regarding pit bulls, my biggest fear is encountering one who is running loose while walking my sweet friendly dog. Too many people have seen their dogs killed. Just last week a 7 year old boy was killed by the family pit bull in Minneapolis. I’m sure there are many nice pit bulls but most are very aggressive towards other dogs That is my objection, I want my dog to be safe when I walk him.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
To sylvia September 13th, 2007 at 8:19 am:
1. All of what you say is true. One of the positive aspects that would come out of my idea is that we could easily identify most active back yard breeders, and with enough public pressure on law enforcement, crack down, and attempt to prosecute.
2. There are a number of positive things that PETA accomplished in the early days [and even today]. Perhaps you don’t consider saving lab animals an act of goodness. Of all the things they have done or not done, the one thing they have accomplished more than any other organization is to make the public aware of what is happening. PETA is an animal rights group as opposed to an animal welfare group.
To Nancy September 13th, 2007 at 8:46 am:
1. Again, definition for “reputable breeder” is a timeless debate. By your definition a breeder who can’t locate the family that bought one of the breeder’s puppies two years ago is not a reputable breeder.
2. Good, credible stats are really hard to come by.
To everyone: It’s easy to complain and point fingers. Anyone can do it. But it’s much more productive to put ideas out there that might potentially serve to resolve the problems.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Yes, I too would like to know what wonderful things PETA did in the eighties. They got my name when I was in college and I can’t get them and the Humane Society of the United States to stop sending me their literature and emails. I suppose I should find some joy in the money they waste sending junk mail to me.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
CorgiPants:
Maybe you forgot that PETA has had an enormous effect on the way corporations treat animals.
~ More than 550 cosmetics companies do not test products on animals as a result of PETA efforts. [Remember those Draize tests on rabbits?]
~ They got GM to stop conducting crash tests on pigs and ferrets.
~ PETA convinced Mobil, Texaco, Pennzoil, Shell, and other oil companies to cover their exhaust stacks after showing how millions of birds and bats became trapped in the shafts and were burned alive.
There are many feats. Those of you who dislike PETA or have become disenchanted with them or their practices might at least give them some credit where it is due. Click on this link and select a year and you will see some startling reminders of the good they have done.
http://www.peta.org/feat/PETAMilestones/main.html
September 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Lynn, what PETA did twenty or thirty years ago doesn’t alter, excuse, or mitigate what they’re doing now. Ingrid Newkirk is dedicated to the mission of eliminating ALL domestic animals; she doesn’t want pets to exist at all, and there is nothing responsible breeders could do to convince her and her crew that they’re not the bad guys, because in her mind, the simple fact that they do not neuter or put down all their animals without ever breeding another litter, proves that they’re the bad guys.
PETA wants all intentional breeding to stop. No exceptions for working stock dogs, S&R dogs, guide dogs for the blind, etc., because the whole idea of using animals in any way for human benefit is anathema to them. They want all our pets to come from the shelters. And they want all the shelter animals neutered before they leave the shelter. Now, answer me this: If no intentional breeding is allowed, and all random breeding is prevented, how long before we have no dogs? No cats?
Defending PETA now on the basis of what they did many years ago is like defending a serial killer against the charge of murder on the grounds that, as a boy, he was kind to his mother.
As for responsible breeders: no human effort is 100% successful, but responsible breeders’ failure rate (measured in dogs or cats winding in shelters, or pet-quality anmals not being neutered, or animals winding up as breeders for BYBs or puppy mills) is vanishingly low. Responsible breeders are not the source, or part of the source, of the shelter over-population problem, and have nothing to prove, whether to PETA, or to you.
My dog is a Chinese Crested Powderpuff–12.5 pounds sopping wet, friendly, good with cats, good with kids, energetic and athletic enough to enjoy long walks, some hiking, or playing fetch in the yard, but not needing two or three hours of running every day. When I was at my local shelter recently dropping off some food, I took a walk through the dog pavilion: lots of bigger dogs, mostly pit mixes or Lab mixes, athletic, high-energy big dogs that I couldn’t provide enough exercise for, many of whose cages bore signs saying that they couldn’t be confined in a pen because they are athletic dogs who jump Not on people, but over things.
And there were two elderly Bichons with medical problems–not horrible ones, these dogs would make good pets for an older person looking for one or two quiet indoor companions. Asking them to keep up with my daily walks in all weather, though, would constitute abuse.
And that’s normal in this area, not a skewed one-day picture. Most of the dogs in shelters around here are dogs I just couldn’t possibly provide a home for. So, if I want a dog (and I do) what are my choices? What do you want to be my choices? Ingrid Newkirk wants my choice to be the big, over-energetic shelter dog, or nothing–and she’d kill all the pit mixes, narrowing the choices even further.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Then site above is hardly objective and who knows what is true and what is not. PETA is not known for their veracity that’s for sure. Well I am PETA”d out.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Whether you like PETA, don’t like PETA, or somewhere in between, I think in the long run this will hurt many animal advocate people.
I respect the many great things PETA has done to educate me and the public on many things.
I also disagree greatly on how they tend to skew facts for “the greater good.” (Causing many false campaigns to be lodged against them.)
Mostly I tired of them doing stupid stuff like this that the general public will look at and equate to “all those dog rescue people are like that.” It really hurts some of us to be considered “crazy animal ladies” when we are trying to educate people.
Attacking all breeders is not the solution. Yes there are fewer responsible breeders than there are their couterparts, but attacking will not help in the long run. Sigh.
–Kristy
September 13th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
[…] reported on Itchmo.com and elsewhere, PETA has begun one of their publicity stunt campaigns, this one directed against […]
September 13th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Demonizing breeders will not solve the problem. Anyone in rescue knows that August is one of the worst months with tons of dogs coming in. The cute puppy parents go for their 12 year old is given up because the kid is now going to college and the parents don’t want to take care of the dog.
The biggest problem….owners think dogs are disposable. Not only do they dump their current dog at the local shelter, but the next day they’re shopping for a new puppy in front of a grocery store or at a local park. These same careless owners are the ones that allow their dogs to roam the neighborhood and get pregnant.
What breeders do (not careless owners, breeders) is insure the health and safety of their dogs. Most national breed clubs have their own version, but here is an example of the Code of Ethics that most breeders adhere to: http://www.breeders.net/code_of_ethics.html
Want to drastically lower euthanasia rates? Advocate the only program that has proven successful: http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/
Unfortunately it takes a Animal Control Manager with insight which is getting more and more difficult to find.
September 13th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
To Lis [re September 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pm]: “Lynn, what PETA did twenty or thirty years ago doesn’t alter, excuse, or mitigate what they’re doing now.”
If you had taken the time to trace back through the thread you would have seen that I was responding to the question about what good PETA had done in the past. At no time was my intent to negate unsavory practices.
September 13th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Why is it that so many of you are quick to say what’s wrong and point fingers, but don’t offer a viable solution?
September 13th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Re Kathleen’s 8:10 PM comment: “The biggest problem….owners think dogs are disposable.”
Very true. And why? Because pets are so plentiful. Old “supply and demand” economic laws. Consider HOW they came to be so plentiful. [Do some reverse engineering.]
September 13th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
What an absolutely disgusting, distasteful ad & what a punch in teh stomach to responsible breeders everwhere!
We have every right to purchase healthy pets from any breeder we choose, and not have to be guilted into adopting from a shelter. How dare they equate purchasing a well bred pup - or ANY pup with the death of a shelter dog? Does it occur to them that many people would not consider the pound as a viable place to acquire an animal? No, I’m sure it doesn’t. All that matters to PETA is THEIR secular progressive views, their opbjectives, their opinions.
I should expect no more from an organization that would place as much value on the life of a child as that of an animal. Yes, I should expect this, but yet I cannot help the revulsion and SHOCK I am feeling.
I AM PROUD TO BE A BREEDER. I don’t care about shelter dogs I care about MY dogs, and the *welfare* of my pups. I am equally as PROUD of the homes my pups are in. May I add that many of the same homes that previously did own a shelter dog now have a pup from me, and they deliberately sought out a breeder because of all this AR sentiment dogs that should be destroyed at the pound are being allowed to live, to be adopted out to families with children. Its a shame PETA doesn’t realize there is no overpopulation problem save for their imagination - overcrowding in shelters because of stupid owners, yeah. But overpopulation? I work with a private cat/small dog rescuer (imagine that, a murderer breeder working with rescue @@) who people are flocking to in LIEU of going to a shelter here in NYC.
Oh well, I hope everyone who agrees with PETA eventually gets their wish. Because you know, do the math. You spay and neuter everything that walks and soon there will be no more darling shelter dogs in certain areas of the country ::cough:: california ::cough:: That’ll spread, and give it oh, 20-30 more years of that and NO ONE will own a dog.
Sorry for the rant, but the shock of this disgusting advertisements still has not even wore off yet … appaling.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
“THEIR secular progressive views”
Please don’t blame secular and progressive people for this nonsense.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
And I don’t know about dogs, but there is huge overpopulation of cats–far more than can be taken care of by anyone who cares for cats and, at the same time, taken care of well.
“You spay and neuter everything that walks and soon there will be no more darling shelter dogs in certain areas of the country ::cough:: california ::cough:: That’ll spread, and give it oh, 20-30 more years of that and NO ONE will own a dog.”
You don’t agree with spay and neutering animals then, especially those not intended for breeding by reputable breeders?
September 13th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
I agree with you all regarding responsible breeders, responsible owners and irresponsible PETA. It serves no purpose to reitierate what has already been stated many times in this thread.
Of course, I know the AsocialApe is simply a PETA plant, or is it HSUS?
” people that are actually kind, whether they’re in PETA, HSUS, or whatever, love _animals_ not breeds. ”
LOL! Kind? These are the people who murder kittens and puppies - that’s so kind - and bury them in dumpsters. They are self serving organizations, run by self serving individuals who could care less about domesticated animals. Their goal is to end the existance if domesticated animals. Actually if the truth be known they would probably end the existance of all animals. With this kind of love, animals will cease to exisit!
“so keep up your self serving breeder apologist statements trucorgi, but i know, and i’m pretty sure _you_ know, that you’re FOS, and know that you and your ilk are part of the problem, and what you’re doing is immoral, and wholly self serving.” More of the pot calling the kettle black!
As for pitbulls, I doubt seriously that most people could deferentiate them from several other breeds. (There is a test online somewhere with photos and most people score very low.) THE BREED IS NOT NEVER HAS BEEN THE PROBLEM! It’s the owners that are the problem. Any of them can be rehabilitated - of course this can’t be done by everyone, but it can be done. The drive-by media has created a frenzy regarding this breed that is not deserved. That aside - the HSUS stated that Michael Vick’s dogs must be destroyed but they cannot be rehabilitated. Sounds as if they are on the same page as Ingrid. (…and no I don’t breed pits, nor do I have one - but I would when I have the room).
What I would like to say is to the people who are donating money to these so called animal advocates, such as PETA, HSUS and Best Friends, to name a few - please research where your money is going and what it is being used for. And do not do your research on the sites set up by these organizations. If you want to donate money to actually help animals, there are many rescue organizations - pure breed and mixed - cat and dog and horse. Donate money to them - again do your research first as there are collectors and wackos there, too. There are elderly people who can’t afford medical attention for both themselves and their pets - give your money to help one of them. There are soldiers being deployed to Iraq, who are forced to take their pets to a shelter, because they can’t find anyone to care for them - take in one of these pets - at least until the soldier returns, service dogs of all kinds are needed all over the world - donate to one of them. There are so many worthwhile organizations that actually help both animals and people - no one should at a loss as to where to redirect the donations formerly given to PETA, et al.
PETA KILLS DOGS AND CATS!
(I guess that kills their “chances,” too, huh?)
September 13th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
“Consider HOW they came to be so plentiful. [Do some reverse engineering]”
nobody in this thread needs to do reverse engineering. the problem source has been defined by many. PUPPY MILLS, BYB’s and irresponsible owners. NOT the reputable breeders who PETA is attacking. they need to take their dollars and go after the big guys, NOT the little guys. got it? that sign should read pet stores here in NYC. i’m sure we have more pet stores than responsible breeders. we also have impulse buyers etc. THAT is a problem here. NOT the responsible breeder. maybe where you live, responsible breeders are causing a problem, but they are NOT causing a problem here in NYC where that offensive billboard is. here’s an idea, why doesn’t PETA work to make internet sales of animals illegal? the internet has been a boon for puppy mills and byb’s. got credit card? overnight shipping available.
Christine,
“and they deliberately sought out a breeder because of all this AR sentiment dogs that should be destroyed at the pound are being allowed to live, to be adopted out to families with children.”
no dog that SHOULD be destroyed is being allowed to live. dogs that SHOULDN’T be destroyed are being given a CHANCE to live. i would hope that you understand that and educate people who don’t vs just selling them a dog. education is what we NEED. most people i know working in the shelter system are animal WELFARE, not AR. they are not out to put dangerous dogs in homes. any home, kids or not.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:03 am
“I AM PROUD TO BE A BREEDER. I don’t care about shelter dogs…”
Nice. Thanks for reinforcing a number of my earlier opinions.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Christine, what an amazing rant! And so counter-productive for your own interests!
Does it occur to them that many people would not consider the pound as a viable place to acquire an animal?
The pound can be an excellent place to acquire an animal, IF your needs and what they have available matches up. Just recently my local pound had possession, for a few days, of a dog my sister might well have adopted, if his owners hadn’t turned up to claim him the day before he would hav gone into the adoption program. Friendly, healthy, and a high-energy larger dog: a dog well-suited to be the running partner she’s looking to add to her household in the next year or so.
All that matters to PETA is THEIR secular progressive views, their opbjectives, their opinions.
News flash: this isn’t a left/right issue, and PETA is not in any way, shape, or form, “progressive.” They are extremist, radical nutcases, and their extremism and radicalism is not related to any normal political concerns of anyone on the left or right of normal political divides. Which is to say, you’re slagging off quite a few of your allies, if your goal is to proserve your right to be a responsible breeder.
I don’t care about shelter dogs I care about MY dogs, and the *welfare* of my pups.
Most responsible breeders care about both, are involved in breed rescue, support their local shelters if they are well-run, and try to encourage improvements if they are not currently well-run.
May I add that many of the same homes that previously did own a shelter dog now have a pup from me, and they deliberately sought out a breeder because of all this AR sentiment dogs that should be destroyed at the pound are being allowed to live, to be adopted out to families with children.
“Should be destroyed” ? The dogs that should be euthanized(either dangerous, or suffering from medical conditions that won’t allow them an adequate quality of life) are euthanized. The dogs that are put up for adoption are dogs that will make the right families wonderful pets. Most of these dogs are in the shelter through no fault of their own, but through either the misfortune, or the stupidity and indifference, of their previous owners. You even indicate about a paragraph lower that you know that owner stupidity is responsible for many of these dogs being in shelters. Do the dogs deserve to die because of owner stupidity? Or do you believe that they deserve to die simply for being, mostly, mutts? The tone of your comments almost sounds like that!
I’ve had wonderful pets from shelters, and wonderful pets from breeders. Sometimes one is the right choice, and sometimes the other is–but when you’ve made the right choice for your circumstances at the time, they’re equally wonderful, loving pets.
Oh, and most people working in shelters are Animal Welfare people, not Animal Rights people. Do you know the difference?
I work with a private cat/small dog rescuer (imagine that, a murderer breeder working with rescue @@) who people are flocking to in LIEU of going to a shelter here in NYC.
It’s not a competition, Christine, and the shelters are not the enemies of rescues (or, usually, vice versa. Your rescue excepted, apparently.)
The goal in each case is to save the lives of the animals and get them into the right, forever homes. Or at least, that’s usually the case. Your comments do make me wonder what the policy of your rescue group is, towards mutts or badly-bred dogs whose previous owners were “stupid.”
September 14th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Regarding Liz’s comment, “How long before we have no dogs/cats?” Thousands of years is the answer. Liz, there are so many babies in shelters that have no home. I think you need to visit them every 2 weeks. You won’t see the same dogs/cats there each time. Because the ones that didn’t get adopted, got euthanized. It is a terrible waste of life. I love animals so much, that I have always thought of breeding and selling animals as auction blocks for slaves. What price do we sell people for? I feel that my dogs are my daughter and son. If they had puppies, thay would be my grandchildren. Let’s see, How much should I sell them for? And yes, my babies are rescues from the pound, as always.
Dee Eagle
September 14th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Same Liz, later on? “I don’t care about shelter dogs, I care about my dogs and pups”. Never mind, Liz, you are too sick.
Dee Eagle
September 14th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Dee Eagle,
You keep referring to “Liz”–it was Christine.
September 14th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
All this from the organization that says if you eat meat, you can’t be an environmentalist and are contributing to “global warming”. And the same people who were all screaming about how pit bulls should be obliterated, yet suddenly changed their tune once the Vick thing came along just so they could get some good publicity.
Truly good breeders keep pets OUT of the shelter. They screen their potential clients. They watch for known breed problems and try their hardest to keep things like hip dysplasia and bad temperments out of the gene pool. They will take a dog back if the owner can’t take care of it.
You want the source of shelter overpopulation? It’s stupid people. It’s people who breed for money. It’s people who do NOT take into account that dogs don’t train or excersize themselves, and get a big, energetic dog simply based on what it looks like. Even dogs adopted from the shelter many times just end up going back to the shelter because people just DO NOT bother to learn about breeds or have absolutely no time for any dog. My dog was in and out of the shelter twice just because none of his previous owners took into account that belgian tervuren mixes are very, VERY high energy. To them he just looked cute.
Stop puppymills. Stop getting dogs based on a whim. Do a little research of your desired breed or mix first. But don’t go attacking one group blindly while totally ignoring the realm facts of the matter.
Screw you, Peta.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Dee Eagle says:
September 14th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Regarding Liz’s comment, “How long before we have no dogs/cats?†Thousands of years is the answer. Liz, there are so many babies in shelters that have no home. I think you need to visit them every 2 weeks. You won’t see the same dogs/cats there each time. Because the ones that didn’t get adopted, got euthanized. It is a terrible waste of life. I love animals so much, that I have always thought of breeding and selling animals as auction blocks for slaves. What price do we sell people for? I feel that my dogs are my daughter and son. If they had puppies, thay would be my grandchildren. Let’s see, How much should I sell them for? And yes, my babies are rescues from the pound, as always.
Dee Eagle
Leaving aside the fact that you can’t seem to distinguish me from Christine, whom I was responding to and disagreeing with, I do want to respond to one point.
Responsible breeders are not breeding for money. They barely break even, and go to considerable effort to get their babies into the right homes, where they will be safe and loved and cared for. And neutered, btw. They take back any dog at any time, if the owner can’t keep it for any reason. Dogs from responsible breeders are not the ones crowding the shelters.
If all breedings banned, and all dogs and cats must be neutered before they leave the shelter, no, you are not talking about “thousands of years” before there are no dogs and cats to adopt. In the Northeast and the Northwest, shelters are bringing in adoptable dogs from parts of the country where the message of spay/neuter has not been as effectively transmitted–i.e., for the kinds of dogs people want, in these areas we already have “no homeless dogs” and have to bring them in from up to 1500 miles away, from areas where they still are “surplus.” The dogs who are sitting in shelters for more than a few days are the dogs that are genuinely harder to place: larger, higher-energy, may be of a breed that has a bad reputation, etc. Not everyone who wants a dog can take these dogs, no matter how much they care. And in order to reduce their numbers, it’s not the responsible breeders we need to shut down; it’s the puppy mills, the backyard breeders, the “just one litter” folks.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Christine, how in your right mind can you say that there is NO pet overpopulation problem? OMG, have you walked outside your door lately? You have no idea what you are talking about. Millions of animals are killed in shelters every year because there are not enough homes. Two unaltered cats and their offspring can produce 420,000 cats/kittens in ONLY 7 years. You say you don’t care about shelter dogs. Well, YOU are exactly the kind of breeder that those of us in rescue are trying to put out of business. Do you follow up with everyone who has every bought a dog from you? Probably not. Do you offer to take the dog back if something should happen down the road? Probably not. I am in contact with every person who has ever adopted from me and I take them back if they can no longer keep them. Also, I do not PROFIT off the backs of my animals. I spend much much more vetting them than I get as an adoption fee. So don’t you date point the finger at rescue people and don’t you dare sit there in judgment of us, because we are the ones picking up the pieces of the broken lives that you and people like you continue to pump out and sell to the public. And in case you were wondering, a study was done (and this does not include ferals) if all the cats in all the shelters in the US were to be placed in homes, every home in the US would have 7 cats. Now, try and tell me there is not a pet overpopulation problem. Also, while Labs are the number one dog in the US, they are also the number one euthanized dog in the US. Also, there is breed specific rescue for every breed of domestic animal out there, yet you keep breeding and breeding and breeding and we keep rescuing. I say KUDOS to PETA for bringing this to people’s attention.
September 14th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Lis,
i have to wonder what cat/small dog rescue she *works* with and if they are a part of the Mayors Alliance which works directly with the city shelters to save dogs/cats that need out. not ones that SHOULD be euthed, but ones that shouldn’t be and just need a chance. if they do, seems like they need to inform their people what the process is here ;)
and yes, us radical extremist shelter workers serve up plenty of meat at our get togethers, lol!~ one guy i know makes some kick butt bbq chicken ;)
September 14th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Taylor, whether or not Christine is a truly responsible breeder, the fact remains that the dogs and cats in shelters do not come from responsible breeders–people who do the exact same thing with the dogs you foster and adopt out: screen applicants for the pups, have contracts requiring the pup be spayed/neutered if it is not already when it leaves for its new home, require that the dog be returned to them if at any point, for any reason, the buyer/adopter cannot keep it. Responsible breeders do follow up; my contract with Addy’s breeder requires me to send pictures on a regular basis, among other things.
Responsible breeders have an extremely low “failure rate”, measured in dogs or cats not spayed/neuterd, and dogs and cats that wind up in shelters. And they don’t profit from their animals, either; in a good year, they might sorta kinda break even, if you overlook the cost of toys and treats. The “purebreds” in shelters come from backyard breeders and especially puppy mills–and if all pets came originally from responsible breeders, the shelters would be almost empty. (There would still be an irreducible minimum of dogs and cats left homeless because of tragedies befalling their human families.) But PETA wants to obscure the difference between puppy millers and responsible breeders who are as careful with the placement of their pups and kittens, because their goal isn’t that all dogs and cats should have safe, loving homes; their goal is that domestic dogs and cats should not exist. If you are a pet lover, please don’t fall for their propaganda!
Straybaby–I could go for some good bbq right about now! :)
September 15th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Gotta love it!!
One of the holier than thou breeders lets out their secrets about why breeders hate PETA so much, and why they hate these billboards
Check out the comments by Kelly
http://blog.peta.org/archives/.....p#comments
and
http://blog.peta.org/archives/.....p#comments
I also love the breeder comments about how mixed breed dogs are all scum. Holy moley! Yuck!
September 20th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Okay, I will give you that there are SOME responsible breeders out there; however, for every 1 good breeder, there are THOUSANDS such as the following. Oh, and Christine, you tell me that there isn’t a problem after reading this and we could have something to discuss, but the way I see it, nuff said:
BY STACY HUDSON ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
An Arkadelphia couple faces 172 animal-cruelty charges after Little Rock Animal Services employees discovered more than 90 dogs, cats and birds in the back of a U-Haul truck Friday night.
Volunteers with the agency and the Humane Society of Pulaski County worked from 5 p.m. Friday until about 2 a.m. Saturday evaluating the conditions of “70-something dogs, 11 birds and four cats” outside the U-Haul store at 4809 W. 65th St., said Tracy Roark, animal services manager.
The animals had been in the truck, which had broken down, for at least two days, authorities said. Most of them were purebred, small dogs such as Chihuahuas, Pekingese, poodles and terriers.
“They were in pretty bad shape,” Roark said. “We’ve not seen anything in the city like this.”
Johnny Franklin Maynard, 42, and Sharon Ann Maynard, 54, both of 2460 Hasley Road in Arkadelphia, were to appear in Little Rock District Court on Monday.
A Little Rock city ordinance allows for a fine of up to $500 for each violation, Roark said.
The Maynards were each charged with 92 counts of neglect and 80 counts of failure to provide medical aid.
“Cruelty includes physical abuse and abuse by neglect, which is failure to provide adequate shelter, food, water and medical care,” according to Little Rock’s Web site.
Six volunteers helped rescue the animals, which were in wire cages lined up in rows and stacked inside the unventilated truck, said Kay Jordan, executive director of the county Humane Society.
“The birds … there were a few in birdcages sitting around outside on the ground, and then there were some birds in little pet taxis” in a vehicle being towed by the U-Haul truck, Jordan said. “All the rest of ‘em were piled up — it was either four or five layers … on each side of the inside of the truck. Then there were pet taxis that, we figured … had some cats and dogs in them that they had set in the middle between the tiers of cages.”
Some of the cages had to be cut open to get the animals out, and the stench of the truck was “toxic,” Jordan said.
“There was urine and feces coming out of the back of the truck,” she said.
Desiree Bender, state director of the Humane Society of the United States, said she suspected the animals came from a puppy mill and were being sold to pet stores.
“Arkansas is one of the top nine puppy-mill states in the United States,” Bender said.
A phone number listed for the Maynards’ home in Arkadelphia went unanswered Saturday night.
Bender said she feared the animals had been kept in the cages for a while.
“Inside this U-Haul truck was the equivalent of a garage that had dogs in it for months and years,” she said. “These dogs, we had to yank them, pull them totally out of those crates. We had a hard time getting a lot of them out because they wouldn’t come out.”
As of Saturday night, all the animals were being cared for by the city and the Humane Society.
Animal-welfare advocates in Arkansas have been working to establish stiffer penalties for cruelty to animals.
Two bills that would have made animal cruelty a f elony on either the first or second offense failed in the Legislature earlier this year.
Currently, the crime is a misdemeanor
September 27th, 2007 at 11:11 am
For those not convinced that there is a PROBLEM with breeding animals, just read this news story. YEP, that’s right, ANOTHER BREEDER shut down for being a puppy mill. You people who try to claim that we NEED breeders are living in a fantasy land where everyone gets along and no animals are tortured, killed or suffer for profit. WAKE UP!!!
More Than 240 Dogs Seized From Puppy Mill
They were living in their own filth and they were not being cared for, that is how Maura Davies of the SPCA of Texas describes the scene she saw.
“It’s the worst I’ve seen in years,” she said.
Cage after cage, kennel after kennel, dogs and puppies were found underfed, neglected and malnourished on a piece of property just outside of Gladewater.
“It’s extremely disgusting,” said Davies. “There’s feces everywhere, there’s junk everywhere. The animals are just living in the most horrid conditions I can imagine.”
Yorkshire Terriers, Pomeranians, Boston Terriers, other small breeds of dog were locked up and used for breeding in a puppy mill–one of the worst Upshur County officials say the have ever seen.
“This is the first time I’ve seen any situation when there’s this many dogs in one place,” said Upshur County Sheriff Anthony Betterton. “You hear of puppy mills everyday but you never really expect it until you come out to a situation like this.”
More than 240 dogs were found all over the property. Some dogs were already dead and others were saved in the nick of time because someone stumbled across the surprising sight.
Upshur County officials say a man discovered the dogs when he came to the property looking to buy a camper trailer, but what he saw prompted him to get some food for all the mistreated animals.
“Hopefully, at the end of the day, every one of these dogs will be going to a place where they can be taken care of and built back up,” said Sheriff Betterton.
The SPCA of Texas had that same hope as they carried dog after dog away from the property to where officials say they can get the proper care they need.
“The way it seems to me is that the individuals that owned this property and was taking care of these dogs were looking out for greed, money, and whatever they could make off of these animals,” said Betterton. “That’s just totally embarrassing. It’s uncalled for and it’s inhumane.”
More than 240 animals saved today and countless animals rescued from years of abuse.
Layron Livingston, KLTV 7 News. llivingston@kltv.com
For more information on how to support the SPCA of Texas in their effort to help abused animals, click the Know More On 7 link, and click on the SPCA link.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:37 am
unpleasant surprise. The “animal rights” movement is not
what it claims to be. Animal rights activism is not ultimately about the
rights of animals at all, not in the sense that most pet lovers would think.
The title, “Animal Rights Movement” is much like the title “Moral
Majority”; most civilized people certainly would want to be thought of as
part of a “moral” group, if in name only. Similarly, an encyclopedia
salesman shrewdly asks “don’t you want your children to have a good
education?” knowing the reply of good parents everywhere will be
“yes”. The name “Animal Rights” deceptively causes many who anguish
over animal mistreatment to join ranks without examining the “fine print”
of this movement. What animal lover would say they don’t want a better
life for pets and livestock? The name creates instant agreement and
support, and gradually, patiently, “sells” the public on a set of almost
secret beliefs, slowly unveiling them through new laws, ads, and the
media, over a period of years. But this goes much deeper than just the
issue of domestic animals. It is a radical vision of the future, of a new
society, completely remade by different values and ideals. The
movement is based to a great extent on the writings of the professor
and author, Peter Singer, considered to be one of the foremost
respected and controversial philosophers of this era… and interestingly,
a grandson of concentration camp survivors.
He advocates granting certain species of animals more rights, more
“personhood” than certain developmentally disabled humans, such as
those with Downs syndrome, and that such “defective” humans should
be euthanized at birth, (even legally by their own parents).
One fundamental aspect of this view of the world is that animals belong
only in nature and not in human society, where they are simply exploited
and enslaved. This includes all animals, even our often overly-pampered
pets. Pets are seen as neurotic, distorted, and deformed by human
greed and whim. All animal breeding is seen as an abomination. The
creatures we have created, such as purebred dogs, cats, cattle, horses,
etc. are freaks, and best allowed to die out completely or even be killed
by turning them loose in the wild.. knowing they will die.
It is a grave mistake to take this lightly as too extreme to ever gain
foothold. It is already a powerful and insidious movement the world
over.
Unbelievable as it may seem, due to the incremental success toward
accomplishing their goals over the last 10-15 years, we may someday be
unable to have any sort of pets at all. Whether or not it ever reaches that
point, we will, without question, lose many things we now take for
granted. We already have, but it’s our nature to not really notice it, to
perhaps grumble a bit, but we go along with wherever the herd is being
herded (by media, politics, social pressure or expectations of rewards).
We eventually adapt to change, however unpleasant, and usually realize
there is little else we can do.
But what if the future brings us forced vegetarianism, if it even becomes
illegal to produce or eat meat, fish, eggs, milk, cheese? Or to raise or
keep any animal, even a bird or a fish? This is the future the Animal
Rights movement has in store for us if they reach their stated goals.
Even if companion animals aren’t eliminated, our ability to raise animals
will be either highly regulated to the point of being a major deterrent to
breeding them, or it may be so difficult to be able to legally have a pet,
that few will have that privilege.
The AR movement cannot be dismissed as just a bunch of kooks and
crazies. It is a highly organized movement driven by deep, well-
developed, philosophical convictions based on the view that Western
Christian-based societies are barbaric and doomed to self destruct,
taking the rest of the world with them. The foot soldiers of the movement
are usually unaware of the bottom-line agenda, or if they are, turn a blind
eye to it. They see how animals are actually being helped in some ways,
and so support the movement even if not in agreement with the final
ultimate agenda: the end of all domestic animals.
Behind the scenes, groups like PETA, and the Animal Liberation Front,
are contradicting the well-crafted, pro-animal, public image. There are
even incidents where members have adopted healthy puppies and
adults only to immediately euthanize them, (occurred recently in this
author’s hometown). “Rogue” members supposedly, claims PETA’s
(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) president, Ingrid Newkirk.
But this isn’t the first time. Killing animals “saves” them from this
distorted, unnatural life. ” PETA, the best known A.R. group, is not an
animal welfare organization.
PETA spends less than one percent of its multi-million dollar budget actually
helping animals. The group euthanized (killed) more than 1,900 animals in
2003 alone — that’s over 85 percent of the animals it received. In fact, from
July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats, and
other “companion animals” at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That’s
more than five animals every day. On its 2002 federal income-tax return,
PETA claimed a $9,370 expense for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most
people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights
activists don’t eat meat or dairy foods. So far, the group hasn’t confirmed
the obvious — that it’s using the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.”
(reprinted from consumerfreedom.com).
There is a brave new world gestating in the minds of AR adherents. They
see themselves as progressive visionaries, bringing light to a primitive
world in darkness. They are convinced these ideas must be translated
into world-wide laws, if the planet is to be saved from human greed,
destructiveness, and cruelty. Mankind is even considered by many, to be
a planetary infestation of the most destructive parasite on earth. The
A.R. movement has been developing over more than 30 years, as a
reaction to very real problems our society is faced with and has
unfortunately had little success in solving.
Much-needed animal welfare reforms over the years have resulted from
this activism, which unfortunately lends credibility to the movement,
enabling them to make headway in areas most who care about animals
consider harmful, when they see where it is leading. These efforts have
created strong supporters among Hollywood stars such as Doris Day,
Susan Sarandon, and other highly influential people, including the head
of the Humane Society of the U.S. itself, Wayne Pacell.
Whether or not aspects of their ideology have any merit, the threat of
losing a substantial amount of our freedom in the name of their cause is
real. Once lost, freedoms are almost never reinstated. Headway toward
legislating their convictions is moving forward, calculated to sneak up
on us under its many guises. It is perhaps only “helping” pets in our
terms, in order to get agreement and support, since the ultimate “help”
by their standards is to eliminate them. Their propaganda is a “Trojan
Horse” hiding their true agenda, thus minimizing resistance, and both
enlisting and deceiving the very people who will ultimately be hurt by
this, people who truly love animals.
Animal Rights in Europe.
In some areas of Europe, brachycephalic breeds (short noses) may soon
be eliminated, at least as we know them. Breeds with dwarfism,
hairlessness, wrinkled skin, etc. are included in this decision. A
European treaty that is, in effect, a major multi-species, multi-breed ban,
has been signed recently. It identifies numerous domestic animals, dogs,
cats, livestock etc (such as Bostons, English Bulldogs, Persians,
Munchkins and Sphynx cats to name a few) which are deemed by
veterinary decree, to be unnatural to the point of affecting animal health.
Many countries have ear cropping and tail docking bans, (which often
have a counter effect causing more people to import docked and
cropped dogs from overseas and not buy locally). Recently in Spain a
mandatory spay/neuter law passed without opposition. Electronic
training devices are outlawed in some countries, even electronic
fences, and furniture mats. You may think, “well these are good laws, we
need them too!”. Or,if you are on the other side of the fence “This is
America, it can’t possibly happen here!”. But it will happen, it already is.
By the time we wake up to it, we will have lost many small battles but
maybe not the war..and war it is…to them
In the USA
In the USA, various states have passed poorly written, ill-conceived laws,
in efforts to address problems that usually are actually enforcement
issues, and will not be solved by passing new laws with more
enforcement issues. Most of the current laws are adequate, but
inadequately implemented. Instead of finding ways to better enforce, it is
easier to just pass more laws, which gives the public image that there is
action taken to correct problems .
In some areas, pets are being seized from private property and
euthanized without even having displayed aggression, simply due to
their breed. This is a result of Breed-Specific Bans, enacted by people
who usually do not fully understand the issues, nor do they have all the
facts. The long-term consequences of such legislation are rarely studied.
There is a precedent-setting law that passed last year in Kentucky.
Animal Control Officers now have the right to come onto your property
and seize your dogs for any reason they think is justified, without a
warrant or due process, simply on their own judgement and
discretion…Then there is the bill in California, which would require all
dogs in the state to be spayed or neutered, with rare exceptions. The
bill has just been pulled at the last minute and will be presented again
when the time is right. San Antonio is trying to get a similar law passed.
Word is that a town in Oklahoma has passed such a law, more information
on this to come. Ohio is toying with a law to require background checks
and social security numbers on breeders of certain numbers of dogs. (If
any of this is inaccurate, please contact me and correct it)
There is a famous saying referring to the holocaust which is appropriate
here. Its message is basically, if you don’t stop the Gestapo from taking
your neighbors away (even if you are delighted to see them go) the
Gestapo will eventually come for YOU.
Keep track of legislation in both your hometown and federally, and learn
what can be done to protect your rights. Visit this outstanding web site:
join the forum! get informed!
Pet-Law Stafford 07
October 5th, 2007 at 3:19 am
If I wanted a shelter cat or dog, I’d get one! I like to know the history of my animals however and will accept nothing less than a purebred animal! Peta are a bunch of MURDERING IDIOTS! They need to shut up and go away! Peta would rather see an animal dead than happy and living with a family. How does that save animals???
October 5th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I can’t take anything seriously when it comes from a terrorist organization. PETA kills animals. PETA threatens celebs who won’t lend their names to their campaigns. PETA threatens scientists. PETA sends letter bombs. PETA teaches students how to make bombs. PETA is perhaps the most hypocritical organization in America. PETA is cruel and full of …it.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I believe that you can both support PETA and have a small breeding/conformation showing hobby. I have fostered and rescued many mixed-breed dogs from our local shelter here… in fact, I now have two rescue dogs now that were on death row. Both are large mixed breeds, and both share my life. However, I also have and show a certain toy breed dog as well. Big or small, purebred or not, they all rush for the pillow/bed at night and love each other no matter who is purebred and who isn’t.
Basically, I don’t understand why the issue has to be one of black and white. I support certain things that PETA has done to protect animals. I have even been a PETA member in the past. For example, I support the way they have advocated for poor circus animals who suffer tremendously at the hands of brutal trainers. That should be applauded in my opinion.
At the same time, I can understand why a family or first time dog owner would prefer a purebred pet or certain breed. Oftentimes (but not always) there are less risks and behavioral issues, and you know what you are getting into. I have both and have experienced both.
I also think there are some “reputable breeders” who do not treat their animals well. These may be some of the top show dogs in the country, but are forced to travel with handlers for months on end with little attention and socialization. Some are debarked (cruel in my opinion!), some are packed into crates for hours at shows. Some are bred without regard to health or genetic issues because of cosmetic reasons. That is not my breeding philosophy, but it does exist in the high-class world of conformation showing, and we ALL know it! So, we aren’t innocent either.
So…in my opinion, there has to be a middle ground.
October 24th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I found it funny how you can do a supposedly “neutral” story on this when right next to it is a ad for the exact same thing your reporting about. I right clicked it to view the “source” and it said …itchmo not google. So that tells me that your site is actually biased and leaning towards the side of PETA. As I said I will be emailing this to every breeder I can find now.
Here is what I have just published on my website after reading this story. I want to take this opportunity to inform the public about a
current ominous scheme to take all dog ownership rights
away from people like you and me. Recently PETA has
initiated a campaign attacking breeders of dogs and cats.
Throughout the country in major areas like New York have
been hosts to Peta Bill Boards discouraging the public from
buying from breeders. (Itchmo link to article)
There are a lot of extremist views on the internet by