Breeder Bashing: A National Pasttime

Breeder-bashing isn't a new concept.  However, with our rights to breed dogs under constant attack from the animal rights terrorists, led by none other than The Humane Society of The United States (which is in no way, shape or form a "real humane society", but rather an extreme animal rights organization), one would think that dog breeders could find some common ground, stick together, and dispense with the superiority complexes.  No such luck.

One would think that since dog breeding is being compared to drug-dealing, that we could learn to play nice.  Visit one of those damnable online "dog forums" sometime and you will see what I mean.  We seem to forget (or do we?), that many members of the pet buying public go to these message boards to 'learn'.  What are we teaching them?  Just for fun visit one of your breed's message boards.  Or better yet, Google your kennel name, or your dogs' names.  You may be shocked at what "fellow breed enthusiasts" have to say.

"I would NEVER do that, and any breeder that DOES is......"

Fill in the blank; "back-yard breeder" (or "BYB"), "puppymill" (a phrase coined by the animal rights terrorists to divide and conquer us...it's working, by the way), or a modification, such as "showmiller".

Simply put, if WE don't like a certain breeder, or said certain breeder does not DO what WE do, or WOULD DO, then they are less than human and should be banished to the deepest pits of hell.  Nothing a dog breeder does is EVER good enough; everyone that owns dogs, or breeds, has their own "ideas" of "what a breeder should do or be".  No topic is off limits, every action --or inaction-- is subject to being bashed by those that need to feel superior by being self-proclaimed experts while hiding behind a computer keyboard.

Newsflash:  such "superior" beings are NOT helping when it comes to winning the war for our rights to breed and even OWN dogs.  My advice, if one needs help improving self-esteem, read one of those self-help books, or see a shrink.

One topic pounced upon by breeder-bashers is "NO one should own more than--insert number here- dogs!"  Really?  Just who are you exactly to dictate to anyone how many dogs a person should have the right to own?  Of course, this same sentiment does not apply to rescues or fosters because they are "doing good", any other poor schmuck that chooses to have 10, 5, 20 dogs are "evil greedy breeders that should be sent to the deepest pits of hell" .

Another topic:  "Anyone who breeds MORE THAN ---fill-in the blank time again---litters per year is a ....."  Interesting.  So, according to the "experts" no one can be a good breeder if they breed 2,3, or whatever-arbitrary-number of litters per year?  As long as the puppies they produce are healthy, are good specimens of their chosen breed (which is subjective to each individual), and they sell them to good homes, what business is it of ours?  Can you say, "NUNYA".

And then there is the ever popular, "if a breeder is testing at such a young age, they must have something to be afraid of!"  Really???  Isn't the entire point of health testing what we produce (and their parents) is to make sure that we are doing everything we can to make sure those animals are as healthy as possible and to make sure that our puppy buyers know what they can/can't expect?  This seems to be a bashing point done by those that don't do ---for example---eye CERFS on young puppies in a breed where CERFing at a young age isn't the "norm". 

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. 

Remember that saying about glass houses and stones.....

Before all you "breeding experts" run off to educate the public on what a "good" breeder is, don't do the rest of us any favors by preaching what your "beliefs" are as being "my way or it's wrong". 

We dog breeders seem to forget that WE created the anti-breeder sentiment in this country by bashing those that we didn't agree with or by bashing those that did things differently than us.  And look where we are now....the animal rights terrorists and the bunny-hugger followers have taken our "ideas" and are introducing them as legislation faster than a dandelion growing in summertime.  Yes, WE DID THIS TO OURSELVES. 

We created the "breeders are bad" sentiment by expecting all breeders to do as WE DO, or else they are "bad" if they do not.  We have "taught" the public this; we have "created" the monster. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, be careful of throwing those stones; you never know where they will land.  Or how they will come back to  haunt you.

Johnson City,TN Proposed MSN Will Violate Due Process Rights of Dog Owners

The Johnson City, TN, Commissioners will have the second reading of a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance on Thursday, February 18.  The ordinance, which is being proposed by shelter director, Debbie Dobbs, seeks to make criminals out of dog owners who fail to have their pets spayed or neutered or who fail to "apply for" an intact animal permit from the shelter.



Here Comes That Pesky United States Constitution Again...

It appears that the city leaders need a refresher course in civics.  According to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, let's break this down as to how it applies to Johnson City:

• The City would exceed its authority by attempting to regulate the ownership or possession of property (dogs) a violation of the 14th Amendment - with no rational basis
• The City would violate the 14th Amendment by predicating equal rights of animal ownership upon compliance with the unequal requirements of mandatory spay or neuter.

Not Without A Warrant, Mr Animal Control Officer!

Dobbs has stated that this proposed ordinance would be "complaint driven" and that "no one is going to go door-to-door" looking at your dog's reproductive parts (or lack thereof).

So, here is how this proposal would play out:  Let's just say that Mr Animal Control Officer gets a call from your neighbor that your pooch is barking incessantly and is interferring with trying to watch the latest episode of "American Idol" because they can't tell if that's the performer or a howling dog next door....

Mr Animal Control Officer comes to your door and knocks and says he has received a complaint that your dog is driving the neighbor crazy.  "I'm sorry, Mr Officer, but there's this squirrel that doesn't understand that "Fluffy's" dog food is off limits to him.  I'll make arrangements to feed "Fluffy" inside away from the squirrel."

"Ok", says Mr Officer, "but, by the way, I need to inspect fluffy and make sure he doesn't have his testicles, so I'm gonna take a quick peek at him in your yard."

OH!  I don't even think so, buddy.  Not without a search warrant you don't. 

I think we all see the obvious constitutional violations with this proposed ordinance.  Not to mention the fact that your dog's reproductive status is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

Volumes of Opposition Letters Are Needed

Here is where you can help--no matter where you are from, or what breed or mix of dog you have--the folks in Johnson City, TN, need our help.  Write, email, fax or call and let the city commissioners know that mandatory spay/neuter has failed in every city in the United States where it has been implemented. 

Let them know that mandatory spay/neuter laws kills more innocent animals and that such laws interfere with YOUR rights as property owners.  Further, the costs associated with such draconian laws hurt local governments coffers.

Click here for all of the contact info for the Johnson City, TN, City Commissioners.


Oh, And One Final Thought....

For all of you dog owners out there that think that this ordinance "isn't that bad" or "isn't that big of a deal", consider this:  This is a classic "camel sticking its nose under the tent".  Dobbs has already stated that the "fee" can be raised in the future. 

And, to the individual that stated on a breed list recently that (in so many words) since this doesn't pertain to a specific breed, there really isn't a need to oppose....I personally thank my lucky stars that you have zero power of authority. Period.

Happy letter writing, ya'll.

Dog Owners: We are NOT Done MORE HSUS Bills Must Die

We aren't done in Illinois. While the anti dock/crop bill appears to have been defeated, there are still ***2*** MAJOR issues that need our attention.  We are a large, powerful group and the "KILL THE BILLS" phone-a-thon is working!  Keep up the pressure!  The first being the hearing TOMORROW, MARCH 11, in Springfield, HB198 and SB53, the anti breeder bill.   PLEASE use the links provided at the AKC for sample letters you can personalize to help KILL this BILL!  The Illinois Veterinary Medical Association and the AKC remain opposed.

The second bill requiring our help is the MSN ordinance in Chicago.   Hearing on Thursday, MARCH 12...The Chicago Veterinary Med. Ass'n, the Illinois State Veterinary Med Ass'n AND the AKC are OPPOSED to this ordinance and all of its amendments.

I have it on good authority from someone involved in the fight that the HSUS has PROMISED to take this MSN ordinance in ALL directions of the country, should it pass. It is CRUCIAL we all step up to the plate and help each other and preserve our rights to ***choose*** when, where and how invasive surgical procedures are done.

For great sample letters that you can personalize and send to the Chicago Aldermen, please visit the following AKC link by clicking HERE .

URGENT, ANTI-BREEDER BILL TO BE HEARD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, SPRINGFIELD, IL

 Please VOICE your opposition via fax, email and phone to save hobby breeders in Illinois.  This is another HSUS backed bill designed to eliminate breeders.  DO NOT LET THEM WIN.

The following is from the AKC.  For sample letters, for everyone both in and out of state, please click HERE

House Bill 198 and Senate Bill 53


These bills are supposedly an attempt to address “puppy mills” and irresponsible dog breeders in Illinois. However, these bills affect many small-scale hobby breeders and create unreasonable standards for
commercial breeders who are in compliance with current state and federal laws. Their passage will not improve enforcement or the lives of animals in Illinois.

The Illinois Department of Agriculture already has a licensing program in place which requires breeders with more than 5 intact females to be licensed. The “puppy mill” that sparked the introduction of this bill was not licensed as current law required and was being investigated by the Department of Agriculture.

Although draft amendments that have been circulating would allow the Department of Agriculture to administer the bill (current bill language establishes a new program in the Department of Financial and Professional Regulations), the provisions continue to be burdensome and will not improve animal welfare.

Enforcement of current laws is the most effective way to address animal care issues in Illinois.

House Bill 198 is scheduled to be heard:

Wednesday, March 11, 2009
2:00 p.m.
House Business & Occupational Licenses Committee
Illinois State Capitol, Stratton Building
Room D-1
Springfield, IL

Senate Bill 53 is scheduled to be heard:

Wednesday, March 11, 2009
3:00 p.m.
Senate Licensed Activities Committee
Illinois State Capitol, Room 409
Springfield, IL

What You Can Do:

* Call your Illinois State Representative and State Senator TODAY.
Tell them that you are a constituent and ask them to oppose HB 198, SB 53

*Personalize sample letters to send to your representatives. Due to the speed at which these items may move, we highly suggest sending your message in an email or by fax. Click here to find out who represents you in the Illinois State Legislature. (please go to link above to find your rep AND for sample letters)

URGENT:All Dog Clubs and Owners BSL TEXAS CA Residents: MSN Riverside County CA

I cannot stress the importance of unity among ALL dog owners, breeders, and dog clubs when it comes to standing up to BAD laws.  No matter where we live, we will all eventually be faced with laws that will threaten our choices in the breeds of dogs we may own, when or if to spay or neuter, both of which often deny us of our RIGHT to due process under law.

The following alert is from the Texas Responsible Pet Owners Alliance and they need help from dog clubs, training clubs, registries, parent clubs, etc from ALL of us.  Please take a moment, and if you are your club's Legislative Liaison or an officer in a club duly authorized to do so, JOIN onto the brief being filed with the Texas Attorney General...
Please EMAIL Zandra Anderson  if your organization is willing to help !!!

TX-RPOA E-News

From RPOA Texas Outreach and
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
"Animal welfare, not animal 'rights'
and, yes, there is a difference."
Permission granted to crosspost.

January 12, 2009

Urgent request from Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (RPOA)

NEEDS IMMEDIATE ACTION!

In late November Greg Abbott, Texas attorney general, wrote a letter to
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance in regard to his office issuing an opinion on
whether existing state law prohibiting breed specific legislation applies
"only" to dogs already declared dangerous or whether it prohibits
"any" ordinance specific to one breed of dog in Texas.

This opinion was requested by Rep. Tony Goolsby who is no longer in office.
RPOA was asked by the attorney general's office if we wanted to submit a
brief and has hired Zandra Anderson, Houston attorney, to do this for us.

We immediately contacted all our friends on the national level and others who
helped us at the state legislature during the last session regarding the
Dangerous Dog Law to ask if they would submit a brief also. RPOA requested an
extension of the deadline due to the holidays and received an extension until
January 20th.

There's no time to contact everyone again individually so please see that
your state or national club has either already submitted a brief or would they
like to take advantage of a new opportunity to sign on to the RPOA brief being
prepared by Zandra for RPOA -- much less time consuming! Zandra says no
signatures are needed.


Zandra needs an email saying it is okay to add your group and only needs:


1. Name of group
2. Name of person with group
3. Title of person (e.g. pres, founder, officer, legislative liaison, etc.)
Zandra needs this information BY JANUARY 15TH in order to meet the deadline set
by the AG's office. We're seeking the support of all registries' kennel clubs, breed clubs or performance event clubs, rescues, search & rescue teams, therapy groups, etc.


This must be a unified effort to preserve our right to own the dog breed of our
choice. I'm sure you're aware that breed specific legislation in other
areas now encompasses more and more dog breeds. Texas Municipal League and
Texas cities individually are urging legislators to change state law during
every legislative session to allow breed specific legislation. We need your
help.

RPOA Texas Outreach (501 C4)
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501 C3)
900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
Website: http://www.responsiblepetowners.org/

URGENT ACTION:  FROM AKC, RIVERSIDE CO, CALIFORNIA SPAY/NEUTER/MICROCHIPPING   JANUARY 13, 2009

Attend the Board of Supervisors Meeting January 13th

9 am, Tuesday January 13th
Board Chambers
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501

Monday, January 12, 2009]


The Riverside County Board of Supervisors will hold a hearing tomorrow morning at 9 am to discuss an ordinance that would require the spaying/neutering of any dog or cat for even a minor violation of the animal control ordinance and would force pet owners to microchip all their animals and register the microchips with the county. It is vital that responsible dog owners and breeders attend the hearing to oppose this measure.



Provisions of the Proposed Ordinance



Requires that all dogs and cats be spayed or neutered unless the owner has purchased an intact animal license. Current law requires owners to license their pets and mandates that the license fee for an intact animal be twice that for a sterilized animal. This will not change under the new ordinance. However, keeping that license would become much tougher.

Any animal that is picked up at-large will be required to be spayed/neutered prior to being returned to the owner. Any violation of the animal control ordinance can trigger a requirement that the animal(s) be sterilized. A few of the examples used in the ordinance include failure to posses a current rabies vaccination, failure to license, leash law violations, animals left unattended in a car and failure to provide adequate care.

A dog would have to be spayed/neutered if there are 2 complaints, verified by the department that the dog has run at-large, or the owner is found to be neglectful. (AKC staff is concerned at the vagueness of this language. It does not appear to require that the owners be cited for the alleged violations or that the owner is convicted of animal cruelty charges.)

If an owner has one intact license revoked, they can have all their intact licenses revoked. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume if one dog was picked up at-large and sterilized, then all dogs owned by this person would be required to be sterilized.

There is no exemption for dogs picked up at-large that do not reside in Riverside County. If a fancier were in town for an event and their dog somehow got loose, it would only be returned after being spayed/neutered.

Requires that any advertisement for the sale of an unaltered dog or cat include the intact license number for that animal. Since animals are not required to be licensed until they are 4 months old, it is unclear how this would impact the sale of puppies younger than four months.

Requires that all dogs and cats be implanted with a microchip and that the microchip be registered with the county. Exemptions are provided if a veterinarian states in writing that it is dangerous to the animals health or would negatively impact the animal’s athletic abilities. Animals that are kenneled or trained in Riverside, but whose owners do not live in the jurisdiction are not required to implant microchips.

This ordinance would require the sterilization of any animal that was picked up by animal control, even on a first offense. This is unreasonable as even responsible owners can have an animal escape due to a mistake by a meter reader, gardener, friend or relative leaving a gate open. We agree that steps should be taken to address owners who habitually allow their animals to run at-large, but such a severe response is not justified by a single incident.


This issue is one of utmost importance to those who participate in our dog shows and events. In 2008, almost 14,000 responsible dog owners participated in 75 AKC-approved events held in Riverside County. When you take into account what these participants spend on hotel rooms, gasoline, food, souvenirs and entertainment, the revenue generated by these events is easily over $7 million annually. Clubs will be reluctant to hold events in an area where an escaped dog would be sterilized on a first offense. Passage of a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance in Riverside County would send a clear message that AKC events are not welcome in the community.


The AKC opposes the concept of mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the right of responsible breeders and owners. Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership. These laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners who won’t licensing their pets. This proposed ordinance will unfairly punish responsible owners who are already complying with local animal control laws, while irresponsible owners continue to make problems for the community and local shelters.


The American Kennel Club also opposes mandatory microchipping. As part of our ongoing efforts to promote responsible dog ownership, the AKC encourages dog owners to properly identify their pets. We believe, however, that the final decision about identification—whether by collar, tattoo or microchip—should be made by the owner, not the government.


What You Can Do    Please click the "what you can do" link for addresses of supervisors and telephone numbers.

Relationships: Vets and Breeders

Veterinarians are a breeders best friend.  They used to be; they should be still.  As was mentioned in the post The Power of Language,  the past two decades have brought about changes in the ways people treat and think about animals, vets included.  The following was written by "Lottadogs", a long-time dog owner, breeder and member of the showing fancy.  Read it, then go have a serious conversation with your veterinarian.

Vets and Breeders
by "Lottadogs"

The new vet is staring at my rather thick folder with an unhappy expression. “Are you some kind of breeder or something?” she asks as my heart sinks.

“Why yes” I answer with a smile, “I’m a breeder and I also do breed rescue making my folder extra thick. I like to say I’m a responsible breeder and that I care about more than just the puppies I produce.” She looks at me in disbelief and then examines my dog.

“How many litters has she had?” the vet asks. “None,” I reply, “she’s just getting old enough to have completed her health testing and I’m thinking about maybe doing a litter next spring.” Again the look of skepticism appears. We leave it at that and once the dog is cared for I leave.

Next time I’m at the office I ask for the senior vet and discuss the conversation I had with his new intern. He tells me the vet is very good but that the new vets are coming out of school thinking that breeding is bad as they don’t have a farm background like the vets used to when he was young. Back then most who studied veterinary science went into school from a background of animal care. Now they are people ‘who love animals’ and that is bringing in a new view of the animal owning world.

I do see more of the young vet as she is gentle with the animals and a good diagnostician plus her schedule is more open than the more senior vet’s may be. Over time she decides I actually am what I say I am, a careful and concerned breeder.

I know I’ve changed her view when she unexpectedly calls me one day for advice to help a client who needs to hand raise a litter. At one point during I conversation she tells me “This person shouldn’t even be a breeder as she’s not the least bit like YOU!” So I know the anti breeding prejudice is still there but at least now allows for there to be exceptions.

What is going on here that veterinarians are coming out of their studies disliking breeders? How could this happen that the professions that need each other should be so at odds? If there are no breeders there are no animals and no need for veterinarians. If there are no veterinarians who are familiar with breeding issues and the care of breeding animals then the breeders and their animals are going to be out on a limb alone with urgent or specialized care needs. People new to breeding will not get good advice or be guided into responsible practices by their veterinarian if the veterinarian is anti breeding.

What are the vets learning in school that makes them anti breeders and breeding? Here’s an example from one curriculum seen here .

“A small animal veterinarian has to decide what procedures he/she is unwilling to do for ethical reasons (e.g. ear crops, tail docs, de-claws, convenience euthanasia, etc.) and be equipped to deal with clients and colleagues who may disagree with your ethical values.”

The implication being that objecting is the correct and ethical stand.

In the early 1980’s,  Bernard E Rollin  who is now widely recognized as the father of veterinary ethics published a book Animal Rights and Human Morality which is and has been used in the study of veterinary ethics.
Veterinary Ethics: Animal Welfare, Client Relations, Competition and Collegiality by Jerrold Tannenbaum is another book used to teach veterinary ethics.

Previously ethics was considered to be about the ethics of running a practice, abiding by rules on advertising and dealing with fellow veterinarians etc. More recently it’s become about whether or not a vet should do a medical procedure depending on how they feel about it.

Starting in elementary school students today are presented with information on animal rights and encouraged to not eat meat, not wear leather, and to consider breeding and owning animals as immoral and cruel. By the time they get to a vet school they have years of images about greedy breeders, puppy mills, and animal cruelty firmly in mind.

Then at veterinary school these attitudes are reinforced with more training that comes straight from the animal rights agenda including peer pressure from those students who are ardently animal rights oriented. Some of it works to short term financial advantages for practices such as promotion of spay neuter surgeries.

There is the push for alternate sources of study rather than using real animals such as is seen here on the veterinarians for animal rights website  .   Not working on live animals is considered ‘good’ and working on living animals or dead animals is considered ‘bad’. Yet do we really want veterinarians who have not worked on the actual animal tissue working on our pets?

According to this site  :

“There are approximately 80,000 veterinarians in the United States, and 11,000 of them are already supporters of The HSUS.”

With HSUS being an animal rights group that supports the ending of all animal ownership or interaction between humans and animals it seems a bit strange to find any veterinarians supporting them at all, but they do.

So what are the results of the new age of veterinary science for the animal owner? Well in the new age lexicon Breeder = Greedy Evil Animal Torturing Person. Not quite how I view myself considering the thousands in dollars and thousands in hours I spend tending to my animals’ welfare!

This extends to the person with that new show puppy who will be encouraged to spay or neuter, not show or breed; perhaps the given opinion will even be based on faulty knowledge of a breed by a vet. I remember one vet who told me to spay my show puppy as she had an undershot jaw – which fortunately I knew was perfectly correct in my breed!

This also impacts the pet owner who might consider becoming a breeder as a definite effort to get the dogs altered is shown.

Extremely high prices for needed medical services come into play. $3500 for a c-section but only $150 for a spay with some vets refusing to do a c-section at all! When a beloved pet dies horrifically as the owner cannot afford to get needed medical care at staggering prices, how many will continue on thinking breeding is OK to do?

If you have a dog that is elderly but in good health, or young but dangerously aggressive or fearful, some veterinarians will refuse to euthanize if the animal is not untreatably ill. This leaves owners open to lawsuits if they rehome a dangerous animal because a vet will not euthanize it, puts more stress on the shelters who may end up taking in these animals, or in the case of a senior animal may mean the pet will be bounced in and out of shelters or foster care until it becomes too ill to rehome as so few adopt a senior dog. Is it kinder to keep the animal alive when the owner wants to euthanize? – some vets now think so.

Then there are surgical issues. Surgery is surgery and always has risks and is only ever done for the owner’s convenience and is never done at the request of the animal. So if it comes down to rights, how is it a vet can decide this surgery is OK and that is not? I’m pretty sure that if my dogs could discuss this, they would be happy to sacrifice a bit of ear or tail in exchange for sex and that their vote would be to retain the ability to reproduce.

In the new way of thinking,  it is OK to do surgical sterilization (NOTE: this is a .pdf file) of an animal with all the far reaching impact this may have due to the change in hormones this causes, but its not OK to snip off a length of tail before a pup can feel that surgery, or take off excess ear so that the ear can stand as is normal in dogs (a drop ear is a mutation seen only in tame canines). It is considered reasonable to mention only the positive effects of alter surgery but not to mention the negatives. Now how can it be OK to ‘sexually mutilate’ a dog without its agreement, but not be OK to prevent tail injury or fix an ear or remove a dewclaw? Do the vets not realize that if they alter the last animals they will be out of work?

I think one of the things the dog fancy perhaps even the AKC should be doing is ensuring the new vets coming along in the world are familiar with the positive side of breeding, and that ethical and responsible breeders not only exist but can be encouraged into existence by a vet with a good attitude towards breeding and the ability to guide a new breeder along the path of becoming a caring responsible breeder. Get them to be an educational resource for breeders rather than a card carrying breeder hating animal rights person. It all starts in their courses in veterinary science and they should be hearing from more than just the animal rights groups on the topics near and dear to us!