Twelve Step Plan To a No Animal Nation: The Animal Rights Agenda

When PETA first came on the scene in the 1980's, the general concensus was "what a bunch of fruitcakes!" The overwhelming majority of animal owners laughed at their nude antics and talk of "Animal Liberation" and "Animal Rights"...INSANE!

We ignored them. We continued on our merry way, going about our day-to-day routines and enjoying our animals and animal related activities. Hunters hunted, fishermen fished, pet owners bought/sold/bred/showed/trained...great advances were made in human and animal medicine. No worries. Life was good. For now.

The ARs told "us" of their plan, their goals...we didn't listen. A nation as great as ours could NEVER allow such lunacy to prevail, right??? NO animal use?, c'mon! NO pets?, "no way!" If only more of us had paid attention to what they were saying...changing the language and playing on human emotion...using "us" to push their socialist agenda : "Guardianship" instead of 'ownership', "don't breed or buy while shelter animals die!", "animals have a right NOT to be eaten!"... Laws were passed while we slept, making it more and more difficult/expensive to own pets...laws were passed villifying hunters...scientists were (and continue to be) ATTACKED for doing important animal medical testing, corporations such as KFC, have been the victims of media- terrorist- tactics aimed at destroying honest businesses...

Honestly, if anyone reading this STILL thinks groups like the HSUS are in it for the welfare of the animals, you need a labotomy. The HSUS is in it FOR THE MONEY. The HSUS and the rest of their ilk are human-haters when you get right down to it. The laws they propose ARE NOT for the benefit of the animals, they are proposed solely for the purpose of promoting their NO ANIMAL USE / VEGAN AGENDA.

So, unless, dear readers, you want to become a nation of tofu burgers on the grill on the 4th of July, unless you DO NOT want a choice as to where your next purebred dog comes from...it is way past time to wake up and JOIN THE CRUSADE.

The following 12 Step plan was published in 1987, when the concept of Animal Rights was as foreign as fuzz on a frog's ass. Look at this list VERY CAREFULLY. ( Over the coming weeks, The Endangered Owner will look at each of these steps individually, so check back.)

Each and every item on that list is being attacked by PETA and the HSUS. And for all of you pet owners out there that STILL do not believe the Animal Rightists want to end ALL PET BREEDING, read item number 10.

From “Politics of Animal Liberation”

by Kim Bartlett,

published in ANIMAL AGENDA, November 1987

1. Abolish by law all animal research

2. Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic and product testing, classroom demonstration and in weapons development

3. Vegetarian meals should be made available at all public institutions, including schools

4. Eliminate all animal agriculture

5. No herbicides, pesticides or other agricultural chemicals. Outlaw predator control.

6. Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the Department of Agriculture

7. Eliminate fur ranching and the use of furs.

8. Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing.

9. End the international trade in wildlife goods

10. Stop any further breeding of companion animals, including purebred dogs and cats. Spaying and neutering should be subsidized by state and municipal governments. Abolish commerce in animals for the pet trade.

11. End the use of animals in entertainment and sports.

12. Prohibit the genetic manipulation of species.

NOTE: This was written in 1987, long before genetic engineering and cloning. In this context, “genetic manipulation” means selective breeding”

**Cross-posting notice**

Cross posting is highly encouraged and welcomed. Post this message anyplace that it will be read by those folks still unaware of what is happening to our rights and to our culture.

Deadly Disease Killing Dog Owners and Breeders

In the midst of the battle for dog owner and breeder rights, a disease has been emerging that is GUARANTEED to kill off dog owners (INCLUDING members of the 'show fancy') and breeders (INCLUDING 'show-only breeders') from all walks of life.

This disease, at present, seems to be rearing it's ugly head primarily within the 'showing fancy', but remember that no one who owns, breeds, or loves animals is immune. Symptoms include, but are not limited to:

• Not being able to realize that ALL dog breeders (commercial, hobby, show, et al) are under attack by the Animal Rightists, such as PeTA and HSUS ("Well, I'm not one of those.....breeders", known as "Throw-The-Other-Breeders-Under-The-Bus syndrome)
• Mistakingly thinking their breeding program is above reproach and scrutiny from same Animal Rightists (the "I only breed for myself/once-every-few years..yadda, yadda, so I am OK", syndrome
• In-ability and down-right refusal, to recognize bad legislation when it is staring them in the face ("I don't mind paying an extortionate fee for a breeder's permit if it will help get rid of the bad/greedy{insert choice word du`jour} breeders"...known as "it's for the greater good" syndrome.
• Refusal to stand in unity with dog owners/breeders from other areas when BSL, Mandatory Spay/Neuter, breeder restriction type laws come up ("WHEW! I'm glad that law doesn't apply to my little safe bubble world",( known as "it's not my problem, and who am I to stick my nose in other state's/city's business..", syndrome)

There are other symptoms, but these are the most prevalent. The first thing to do if you realize you are suffering from any of these symptoms is DO NOT PANIC and realize that you have been used as a pawn in the most common strategy by the Animal Rightists: divide and conquer.

For the first 14 1/2 to 15 years of my own involvement in the sport of purebred dogs, I exhibited the same exact symptoms as described above, so if you are just now realizing your are afflicted, I know how you feel!. Thankfully, I found THE CURE! And you can too!

It involves truth-seeking into the Animal Rights' agenda of no animal use. It means to stop using AR-speak (words like 'guardian', 'puppymill', etc). It means realizing that YOU (yes, 'you' reading this right now), are NOT superior or any better than the Mom-and-Pop breeders down the street, because EVERYONE who breeds dogs is worse than the scum-of-the-earth in the Animal Rightists' view.

The cure, most importantly, involves joining with pet owners of all types, whether they show or not...breeders...whether you agree with their practices or not...We are all in this fight together, but if any of us hope to survive to be able to continue to enjoy, breed and/or show our dogs, WE MUST get rid of this terrible disease...

Apathy.

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!

The Power of Language

I am pleased to offer for the first post of the new year an article written by Elizabeth Brinkley, which is copyrighted and will be published in 4 breed magazines over the next few months by Reporter Publications.

Elizabeth has graciously given The Endangered Owner permission to post it here, with all attributions to Elizabeth Brinkley and Reporter Publications.

The Power of Language

What's in a word? A lot of power for good or bad. When did being a breeder become a "bad" thing? When I first got into Shelties, my mentors proudly had a sign out front proclaiming _______ Kennels. They knew they sold (yes I said SOLD - not placed or adopted) quality show dogs and healthy pets. They were proud of their dogs and their hobby. I was so looking forward to the day when I could have a couple of acres out in the country and do the same. Now I feel cheated. I have a sign out front - in very small letters it says my kennel name but ONLY the name not the word "kennel". There's another sign nearby.

It says "Posted - No trespassing" . Guess that's a sign of the times.


Friends tell me they don't have a "kennel". Their dogs are kept in "dog rooms" not kennel rooms. Others say "ALL my dogs are house dogs". When did keeping dogs in a kennel become a bad thing? When did keeping multiple dogs become bad? Several of our founders made a substantial part of their income from the sale of pet puppies. Now people hide their numbers and won't even tell other breeders exactly how many dogs they have. Others say "I only breed for myself". When did it become a hateful thing to breed a pet or two? Or even (horrors - gasp) make a profit from puppy sales? I know I am always proud when I sell a puppy to someone who will show it but that's not because I am ashamed that I may have produced a "pet quality" puppy but because I am proud that my pups are going to a home where they will be active mentally and physically in breed and performance rings. I am proud that someone who shows would want a puppy I produced. I am equally pleased and proud when I place a healthy pet with someone who will cherish and spoil it for a lifetime.

In the last twenty years, there has been a gradual mind change in our country. Part of it is simply that we are becoming a more urban/suburban country and far less rural. People don't grow up on farms working with animals on a daily basis. Pets have become the replacement for children for many upwardly mobile people who spoil them and treat them as "furkids" and "furbabies". I cringe every time I hear those words - especially from a breeder. The pet industry is a multimillion dollar money machine with clothes, and soft crates and designer treats for pampered pooches. Celebrities use them as accessories. And the fact that they are ANIMALS is forgotten. No wonder people raise such a fuss when a dog "bites" someone. An animal did what animals do and most likely somewhere a human made a mistake with that animal either the owner in training it or the person who approached it. When I was a child it was drilled into us - NEVER approach a strange animal. Wonder how many kids get any training in that today? If you want to know the true facts on the "dog bite" epidemic in our country read "Dogs Bite But Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous" by Janis Bradley. You are more likely to get hit by lightening or slip and fall in a bathtub than you are to be killed by a dog attack. But people have forgotten they are animals. They think of their dogs as their "fur child" and they feel a sense of betrayal and rejection when they get bitten by their dog or it bites someone else.

The other part of this equation is far more insidious. The animal rights cult has grown and spread and is fast becoming part of our mainstream thinking. With them comes the use of words such as "puppy mill". Every time I hear some breeder pointing at another breeder and calling them a puppy mill I want to smack heads and take numbers. I don't feel a need to go into depth on this issue since Charlotte Clem McGowan has done a fabulous job covering the subject in her recent article. I will simply say that in thirty four years in this breed, I have NEVER gone to visit a so-called "puppy mill" breeder in Shelties that actually turned out to be a "puppy mill". Sometimes they had more dogs than some people approved of and sometimes they didn't "keep" their dogs the way others think they should, but never have they turned out to be "puppy mills" such as the AR groups love to show on TV with the filthy wire cages and sad-eyed dogs wallowing in their own filth. In fact two breeders that someone called a "puppy mill" have ended up being among my best friends.

Jealousy was the reason for those accusations. I have visited horrible breeding situations with rescue but never was it someone who was actually a Sheltie show breeder. Maybe I have just been lucky - or maybe it's not as common a situation as the AR groups would have us believe.

The Humane Society of the United States has just announced to the media that there are 900 puppy mills in the state of Virginia, many of them "unlicensed commercial kennels" and selling puppies through the Internet. You couldn't hide 900 unlicensed puppy mills in the entire state of Virginia. Most likely some of those "unlicensed and selling through Internet" breeders they are referring to are US - show breeders who keep our numbers down so we don't have to be licensed as commercial and have fancy web sites to show off our dogs. The animal rights fanatics consider ANYONE who breeds even ONE litter to be a puppy mill. Their motto is "don't breed while others die" meaning the dogs put down in shelters. You can read Nathan Winograd's excellent new book "Redemption, The Myth of Pet Overpopulation"  for a commonsense approach to this "problem" that the shelters and AR groups are using as a weapon to attack breeders.


Other word changes brought into common usage by the AR groups is that of "rescue" and "adoption" and "placement" and home visits. It has become harder to take in a stray than to adopt a human child. I wonder how many people have gotten turned off by some of the attitudes found in the more radical "rescue" groups and gone away when they would have been an excellent home for an animal but didn't feel like being subjected to an inspection process that requires a life history before they can have a pet. I was refused an "adoption" on a cat a few years ago. The reason - I had intact dogs! What did they think - the dogs are going to breed the cat? Or I am a bad person because I have intact dogs that I show? This goes hand in hand with the move among the AR groups to change the language of the law from animal "owners" to animal "guardians".

I am sure a lawyer could address this in far better detail than I but I do know that the word "guardian" has well established limits and definitions under current law. Do you really want some AR slanted animal control officer able to come into your home at anytime without a warrant and tell you that you can't remove dew claws or write you a ticket because your dogs don't have water bowls in their crates 24/7? That could be our future if we become the "guardians" of our dogs instead of proud owners.

There comes a point where we have to start drawing lines in the sand and refusing to give in to the politically correct language that has infiltrated society from the far out AR groups who really don't seem to like animals
all that much. Mostly they just seem to hate people. To Ingrid Newkirk of PeTA "A rat is a pig is a boy." To me "a dog is a dog is an animal". I am proud to say that I am a breeder of purebred Shetland Sheepdogs. Shakespeare said "that which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet." And dog poop is still just as stinky.

I own dogs who live in a kennel and I am a breeder. And that's my final word.

Elizabeth Brinkley
Legislative Liaison
Three Rivers SSC of Greater Pittsburgh