Basset Hounds Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,558 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Philly Dawg

Quote from linked article 10/19 "Tuesday Wag":

"The battle over the fate of hundreds of thousands of puppy mill dogs reaches a crescendo in Missouri. Animal welfare advocates are urging voters to support a referendum known as Prop B or the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act that would mandate sweeping improvements to kennels in the puppy mill capital of the nation. Kennel operators and the farming interests are fighting to kill the referendum, which would require larger cages, annual veterinary care solid floors and set limits on the number of breeding dogs, saying it will put "reputable" kennels out of business. A recent article in Missouri quotes the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture saying, that while two-thirds of Pennsylvania commercial kennels have closed since the dog law passed in 2008, it's been a positive thing for the state. "It sends the message that the law closes down bad kennels and good ones provide higher level of standards for dogs," said Bob Baker, who helped write the Pennsylvania dog law in 1982 and is now executive director of Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation. "
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,042 Posts
The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association is against it - with good reason.

Statement From Missouri Veterinary Medical Association Against Prop B - 24thState

"Picking a Reputable, Licensed Dog Breeding Facility Missouri Veterinary Medical Association member veterinarians care very much about the welfare of dogs in breeding facilities in our state.
We have devoted our lives to the treatment of animals and the prevention of suffering and pain. We agree that there is a ‘puppy mill’ problem in Missouri and we want to resolve it.
The issue of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act has come about because breeding facilities that are unlicensed are not being regulated or inspected.
For a side-by-side comparison of the Proposition B ballot initiative and the current Missouri Animal Care Facilities Act click here.
Our state has good existing laws (Click here for current Missouri dog breeder regulations), but those laws need enforcement.
Cases of neglect and bad conditions have come mainly from unlicensed breeders who are not overseen by state inspection.
Passing blanket initiatives (Click to view a copy of the ballot initiative) without careful consideration of the facts and ignoring existing law is not in the best interest of the dogs we are trying to protect.
The MVMA believes the answer lies in adequate funding for more inspections and better enforcement. You can do your part by making certain your next puppy is not from a puppy mill.
Report them, don’t support them! Click here for "Operation Bark Alert" reporting site. For more information, ask your veterinarian for a brochure on “How to Choose a Puppy” or click here to view a copy.
Prop B isn't about animal welfare or puppy cruelty. It's about adding regulations to the pet industry that can be used as a wedge for future legislation and enforcement. Read the laws on the book. Vote No on Prop B."

If you check the side-by-side comparison, almost immediately you will find this statement:
"A proposed statutory amendment filed with the Missouri Secretary of State by the Humane Society of the United States."

HSUS is an organization dedicated to the elimination of all breeders, and eventually all domestic animals. Their strategy is to introduce legislation that seems benign and helpful, but is designed to be tightened and made more restrictive at a later date out of the glare of publicity.

Keep in mind that the laws assume that dogs are kept in a kennel. Breeders who keep their dogs in their homes, whelp their puppies in their bedrooms or living rooms, actually live with and enjoy their dogs, would be in violation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
973 Posts
I don't claim to support HSUS. I have never donated to them and I never intend to as their pockets are deep enough already and I don't agree with everything they do. I feel the same way about PETA. I am much more comfortable supporting ASPCA and Best Friends, though I am generally more involved with local issues and local shelters.

All that said, I think the all out war against HSUS is a bit over the top. Quite frankly, the complaints/arguments/battles against welfare organizations by breeders (reputable or not) only makes the gap between animal activists and breeders wider.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,947 Posts
HSUS is not nor ever was an animal welfare organization they are and always have been an animals rights organization mask through there name their true intent.


Hell it is discraeful that a they have a convicted animal rights terrorist on the payroll and as a major spokesmAn on animal fighting issues.

[URL="http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/r/244-new-york-times-ad-condemns-humane-society-of-the-united-states-for-terror-fundraising]Ad Condemns Humane Society of the United States for Terror Fundraising[/URL]

The ACC Connection
designed to help researchers with questions regarding animal research at the University of Connecticut Health Center.

The HSUS aims to completely end the use and ownership of animals. In 1980, at a national conference, it was formally
resolved that HSUS would “pursue on all fronts… the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals…
within the full range of American life and culture.” Members of HSUS management (e.g., John Goodwin) have been ALF
members with lengthy arrest records and the promotion of arson to accomplish animal liberation even though HSUS has a
corporate policy of not endorsing violence as a protest tactic. Other management personnel are known to be financial
supporters of ALF and the violence that they do. HSUS has made financial contributions toward “WASTE.org” which was an internet website and the main distribution point for communications of ALF.

Though the assets of the HSUS are over $125 million dollars, they gave less than $150,000 dollars to hands-on humane societies and animal shelters. Despite HSUS’ public claims that it wants to ensure that animals are treated humanely, the organization’s values are geared toward eliminating humans’ use of animals entirely. HSUS leaders have expressed the desire to put an end the use of animals in biomedical research; in 1986, then-VP John McArdle expressed the opinion that brain-dead humans should be substituted for animals in medical research. He then instructed HSUS members to “avoid
the words ‘animal rights’- they are too strange for the public. Never appear to be opposed to animal research. Claim that your only concern is the source of animals”.
Unmarked Anniversary: A Dozen Years on HSUS's Payroll
In April 1993 Goodwin was sentenced to three years in jail as the ringleader of a gang vandalizing fur stores. He spent 30 months under house arrest, finishing his sentence at 22.
Humane Society of the United States - Black Eye


The PA dog law has standards that the average homeowner can not meat in regard to temperature control and ventilation. It goes well beyond regulating humane treatment They require air conditioning and ventaltion system that turns the air over multiple time an hours Which of course require expensive heat exchanger to be efficient because it is way to expensive to cool air that is only allowed to be in the building for minutes. Keep in mind as with all regulation these standars will trickle down,

Hech the standard for the PA dog law a more strick than OSHA requirement for humans
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,947 Posts
gap between animal activists and breeders wider.
Can't be much wider when the mission of animal activist like PEtA and HSUS is to end Pet ownership and breeding. just read the statement made by their leaders


Quotes from the leaders of the animal rights movement

“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 251, before joining the HSUS.

...We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. . One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP of Humane Society of the US, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Animal People, May, 1993


...When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 266.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,558 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I'm surrounded by puppymills here in Lancaster County Pa.- there are hell holes with 600 dogs within 25 miles of my home. So I fought for the passage of the 2008 Dog Law, and every time a puppymill goes out of business because it can't afford to comply with the new regulations I celebrate.

The people who fought for the dog law around here are not members of PETA and don't want to see an end to domestic breeding of animals or see reputable kennels which maintain decent conditions for their dogs shut down.We just want the puppymills out of Pennsylvania. For me this has been a local issue.

I do realize that the Dog Law in this state has national implications and has attracted alot of folks with political agendas on both sides of the issue. The sporting groups have used fear tactics pretty consistantly to push their point :"The laws will trickle down; it will be you next". Personally, I don't see that happening, and I don't like fear tactics used to push an agenda.

I debated the Dog Law on this forum with Mike last year, and think it was a good debate and helped to show people both sides of the issue. But at this point I think I've said all I care to say.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,042 Posts
every time a puppymill goes out of business because it can't afford to comply with the new regulations I celebrate
And what about every time a good breeder has to quit for the same reason?

The hell holes are already in violation of existing laws - those laws need to be enforced and real penalties need to be applied to those who abuse and neglect animals. We don't need to introduce new laws that create hardship for the innocent along with the guilty - and pave the way for the animal rights agenda.

Although people like you who care about animals and support these things are not necessarily PETA/HSUS supporters, you are still advancing their cause. I would love to see puppymills shut down. I don't like commercial breeders. I hate BYBs. But the solution is not more knee-jerk laws based on emotion that punish the innocent along with the guilty. BSL is the most blatant example of this - in my province, in order to solve the "problem" of pit bull attacks (perpetrated by maybe .01% of the pit bull population) thousands of innocent and friendly dogs have been taken from their families and killed because they "look like" a pit bull (which is all that's required under the legislatioin to earn a death sentence whether the dog is a PB or not - if AC or other official thinks your dog fits the description your doe is labeled as a PB and you have to prove it's not).

As for the law itself, there are requirements with which a good kennel owner Would NOT comply. Can't go over it all from mobile, but for example the requirement that dogs must have Constant access to the outside. Think about that. Do YOUR dogs have constant access to the outdoors? Do most pets? Do they need it? There are lots of good reasons why a kennel owner would NOT allow free access to the outside. Most kennel owners will lock the dogs inside for the night, for security reasons and to keep the dogs from being a nuisance by barking at night. Many will lock the dogs inside while they are gone from the premises, again for security reasons. One breeder I know will lock the pop doors when a snow storm is expected - she doesn't want to take a chance on the doors getting jammed with snow while the dog is outside. Pregnant bitches near term should NEVER be allowed free access to outside - responsible breeders will accompany her out, bringing a flashlight if it's dark to avoid having a puppy born and lost outside (it happens). Just this one section alone is BAD animal husbandry, written by people who either do not know or do not care about proper practices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
973 Posts
Can't be much wider when the mission of animal activist like PEtA and HSUS is to end Pet ownership and breeding. just read the statement made by their leaders
Please don't equate animal rights activists as a whole to PETA or HSUS, especially one single person. The vast majority of groups like ASPCA and Best Friends advocate responsible pet ownership. To suggest that the common animal rights activist opposes pet ownership is laughable. I have been to puppy mill opposition events before and everyone there is a dog lover, including the stereotypical PETA vegans, many of which bring their dogs with them.

If one man in HSUS wants to eliminate pet ownership, he has 110 million American households to go.

I was referring to the gap between your common everyday rescue activist and breeders.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,042 Posts
I was referring to the gap between your common everyday rescue activist and breeders.
Perhaps the gap is widened by the many rescue activists who tell people that there are NO "good" breeders and spout slogans like "Don't breed or buy while shelter animals die"?

Our local rescue is excellent and supportive of good breeders (heck, it was started by breeders), however I've come across many whose attitude is frankly disturbing. I attended a rescue event in the US where the anti-breeder undercurrent was enough to make me quite uncomfortable.

If one man in HSUS wants to eliminate pet ownership, he has 110 million American households to go.
Even if that one man happens to be the head of the organization? You think they're not following his agenda?

How about the former Vice President of HSUS?
“Humane care (of animals) is simply sentimental, sympathetic patronage.” Dr. Michael W. Fox, Humane Society of the United States, in 1988 Newsweek interview."

Former CEO

"Don’t breed dogs, don’t buy, don’t even accept giveaways"
HSUS CEO John Hoyt in a 1991 speech.


"My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." Statement made on "AR-Views," an animalrights Internet discussion group,


J P Goodwin, HSUS Grassroots Coordinator while executive director of the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade


See a trend?

Then there's PeTA and it's head, Ingrid Newkirk:​

One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.
The Chicago Daily Herald, Mar 1990

The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.
Animals, May 1993

I don’t use the word 'pet.' I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.
The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223

Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.
Harper's, Aug 1988


In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.
Newsday, Feb 1988

There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what’s this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation. [emphasis added]
— “Animal Rights 2002” convention, Jun 2002



And another quote from our friend, Wayne:
"I want to achieve greater effectiveness and create an even more powerful organization to advance major social changes. ... I've tried to focus the organization on a few key reforms because I believe the only way we are going to achieve change is by putting enough muscle behind specific campaigns - to change the views of policy-makers, corporate decision-makers, and get issues into the media - and to create a grassroots movement to drive these issues forward. So we're first focusing on factory farming, the greatest of all animal abuses as measured in terms of animals involved and the duration and acuteness of their suffering."
(In an interview with Satya magazine, June 2005)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
973 Posts
If more good breeders came out of the woodwork and helped with everyday rescue responsibilities like walking dogs, training dogs, and taking dogs to adoption events, perhaps rescue workers would feel differently. I have not met a single breeder that volunteers in my time volunteering at the shelter and there are over 600 volunteers.

I hear and see breeders say how involved they are yet I have never once actually seen one out doing something worthwhile. The only thing I have witnessed is breeders occasionally taking in foster dogs for breed specific rescues and, admittedly, that is certainly great work. Most homeless dogs aren't lucky enough for a breed specific rescue to pick them up.

Perhaps I am just unlucky and haven't come across one (or they are hiding this fact, which to me is counterproductive), but it is frustrating to see how much time, money, and effort people use to keep dogs from "running out of time" while the people creating more dogs make no effort to help them, especially considering how many of those dogs running out of time are purebred dogs. I have seen at least a dozen purebred bassets go through the shelter this year.

If the breeders opposed to the puppy mill took the time they've spent fighting it and applied it to helping to get rid of the mills in the first place, perhaps the whole bill wouldn't be necessary at all. If breeders want rescuers to support their cause, sitting around doing nothing until a bill appears that is inconvenient for them is not the way to do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
973 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
RE: Breeders and Rescue

Ok, just to go on the record. I'm a reputable breeder of Basset Hounds. Dogs from my first litter are now approaching 11 years old. The latest pups are 6 months old and starting in the show ring next weekend. I have produced 24 puppies and co-owned another 10 at the point they were born in their primary breeders' home. That's a total of 34 dogs. And yes, I know where every single one of them is. Three of them live here with me.

For the past 15 years, I've been actively involved in rescue. Over that time, I've taken in, fostered or found foster care for, evaluated, provided for (and often paid for out of pocket) veterinary care, coordinated fundraising and provided pre- and post-adoption support for something over 1,200 dogs as well as counseling to folks trying to avoid having to relinquish their Bassets. I've also raised four litters of rescued dogs, because I have the equipment, know-how, and was willing to drop everything for a month or two to do so on the drop of a hat. Let's review that again, I'VE RESCUED SOMETHING OVER 1,200 DOGS. Probably about 100 have been fostered directly in my home, some for as long as 2 years, when I knew from the start that they were too old/ill to place.

I've also done shelter walk-throughs to identify and link dogs in shelters with appropriate rescue groups for their breed for a couple of rescue groups. And I've transported, gone to meet-the-dogs, bathed, etc...

Finally, I've held dogs as my vet euthanized them because they were never properly socialized, never properly raised, were mistreated by careless or cruel owners and developed behavioral problems too severe for them to be able to be placed safely, or just because their owners dumped them at the pound when they were no longer young and healthy. Some of that blood is on the hands of their breeders. Much of it is on the hands of their owners.

And as a breeder I do my utmost to make sure that no dog I produce ever ends up at that fate, or in rescue. They always have a home here with me. That is my responsibility as their breeder. *And none other*. The rescue work I do is out of love and compassion, not out of duty.

I don't particularly talk a lot about being a breeder with other people in rescue because honestly I'm tired of hearing about how every one of the dogs that I have produced has "taken the place of a dog that had to be killed because there was no home for it".

I'm not saying that all rescue activists do this, but enough zealots do that it's gotten really tiresome and I just do my rescue work and move on. I'm not alone as a breeder in taking that approach.

Sylvie McGee
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,947 Posts
I don't particularly talk a lot about being a breeder with other people in rescue because honestly I'm tired of hearing about how every one of the dogs that I have produced has "taken the place of a dog that had to be killed because there was no home for it".
There are a lot of anti-breeding zealots in Rescues by I general find them in more of the all breed/mix breed rescues than breed specific rescues. It is on reason for the importation of Sato type dogs and other from foreign sources as being superior to breeding

Redefining pet overpopulation: The no-kill movement and the new jet setters
Faced with fewer small dogs and puppies to offer the public, a handful of shelters and organizations have swapped their traditional mission for a new bottom line strategy aimed at filling consumer demands. Simply stated, they have become pet stores. Some are importing stray dogs across state lines and from foreign countries to maintain an inventory of adoptable dogs. Other shelters are misapplying no-kill shelter principles by adopting out seriously ill and bad-tempered dogs. These practices might be well motivated but they create significant new problems for the responsible sheltering community and the public. To name a few, they sustain rather than solve the "overpopulation" issue; they effect an end run around responsible breeders; they open a door to potentially devastating diseases and parasites not currently found in our country; and they ensure a future in which the supply of healthy, well-bred dogs and cats will be severely limited.
Major advances in regulating animal relocation and importation into US shelters
In 2004 it became apparent that the humane relocation disease time bomb was going off. In July of 2004, a rabid puppy from the Save-A-Sato Puerto Rico stray operation was imported into the Massachusetts shelter system (3). This rabid puppy had a strain of canine rabies endemic to Puerto Rico and found in the mongoose. The CDC tightened its rabies vaccination regulations (4) because the introduction of a new strain of rabies to the region would pose significant health risks to local domesticated animal populations as well as to people. Then in November, 2004, a dog from Mexico became the first case of canine rabies in Los Angeles in 30 years (5) once again focusing attention on the public health threat posed by dog importation.

Documented cases of rabies in dogs imported during 2004, led to changes in the 2005 revision of the Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control, (6) which specifically calls for the discontinuation of importing dogs for sale or adoption from places with dog to dog rabies. Importantly, the Compendium states that federal regulations alone are insufficient to prevent the introduction of rabid animals into the US and thereby invites states to do their part.
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ISSUES EMERGENCYORDER TO STRENGTHEN ANIMAL IMPORT LAWS

Nathan J. Winogard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,947 Posts
If you want to continue to criticize PETA and HSUS, tell me, what has the AKC, the driving organization for purebred dogs, ever done for rescue dogs?
As if we have to ask for Permission?

That said you have an apples and oranges comparison, AKC mission statement is explicit "The American Kennel Club is dedicated to upholding the integrity of its Registry, promoting the sport of purebred dogs and breeding for type and function."

It is not about premoting mix breed or breed of unknown heritage which is the case of the vast majority of recue dogs. The AKC has however recently open their ranks to allow mixed breed dogs to compete in it performance venues under AKC Canine Partners
The have donated an done a ton of research through AKC Canine Health Foundation that benefits both purebred and mixbreed dogs.

Contrast this with org that supposidly are supose to advocate for dog welfare

Better dead than fed, PETA says
The Center for Consumer Freedom, which represents the food industry, a frequent target of PETA campaigns, released data filed by PETA with the state of Virginia that shows PETA has killed more than 10,000 animals from 1998 to 2003. "In 2003, PETA euthanized over 85 percent of the animals it took in," said a press release from the lobby, "finding adoptive homes for just 14 percent. By comparison, the Norfolk (Va.) SPCA found adoptive homes for 73 percent of its animals and Virginia Beach SPCA adopted out 66 percent."
Money Mysteries Part 1: Hurricane Katrina HSUS Fundraising

WSB-TV Investigates HSUS Fundraising Practises: Is There More?

HSUS & Wayne Pacelle -Vick's Dogs Must Die
In an article in the Virginian-Pilot earlier this week enetitled, "Deadline Looms For Pitbulls Seized In Vick Investigation", Pacelle, the HSUS CEO, is quoted as saying, " it does not make sense to keep these animals alive".
But wait - there's more.......................is it even more insane!

Or should we just call it plain GREED, that HSUS was begging for money to care for these dogs just a few short weeks ago
Saving Michael Vick's Dog

HSUS Spending Report.
Using HSUS’s 2008 federal 990 Form, another group, the Center for Consumer Freedom, found that HSUS took in more than $86 million; and spent $31 million on salaries, $24 million on fund raising, $23 million on “campaigns and legislation” and $4.2 million for a lockbox company to count its donations. Money given to organizations that actually worked with animals totaled just $450,000. That’s half of 1 percent."
The “Humane Society” That Isn’t
As we're telling readers of HumaneWatch.org, HSUS collected $97 million in donations last year and spent $22 million on fundraising. In other words, 23 cents of every dollar HSUS collected went right back out the door to raise more money. (We don't call 'em factory fundraisers for nothing.)

The bottom line for 2009 is the same as usual: HSUS sucked in millions from unsuspecting Americans who believed it was running pet shelters (it wasn’t), or that it would give a substantial portion of that money to pet shelters (it didn’t). Instead, HSUS funneled millions to political front groups and affiliated organizations that it controls.

Last year, HSUS earmarked between 1 and 1.5 percent (we're still crunching the numbers) for grants to hands-on pet shelters. That's a step up from the 0.45 percent HSUS shared with cash-strapped pet shelters in 2008, but it's still a pathetic total.
The AKC is not claiming to be something they are not, Peta and HSUS take in money for pet owners and animal advocates thinking they are advocating for pets when in fact they are avocating for the elimination of pet ownership one step at a time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
Kirska - I guess at this point I would call myself a breeder as I have just recently bred my first and most likely only litter of puppies. I know where all of these puppies are and will always know where they are as I am a co-owner on every one and they are all within the family. There will never be a puppy bred by me that will ever contribute to the rescue or shelter overcrowding as these puppies are my responsibility for life... that is just how I see it.

I also however have volunteered on several occasions for our local basset rescue and have taken my showgirl to many events for them to show just how people freindly a basset really can be. I donate money to our rescue whenever possible and when my husband and I were in college we volunteered at the local shelter every evening after dinner walking the dogs and cleaning out the kennels. Now I know there are for more of us out there than post here so perhaps if you get off your high and mighty seat you will see that once again we are not the problem. The issue is the laws that are out there already not being upheld... so what is the point in creating more when no one is doing anything about the ones that are already there... why not use all the money they are wasting on promoting these damn propaganda laws and hire some extra law enforcement to uphold what we already have on the books?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
973 Posts
Sylvie, your work is admirable for any rescue worker, breeder or not, but the sheer magnitude of work that you've put in for purebred bassets just goes to show how irresponsible the vast majority of breeders are.

I wholeheartedly believe you when you say that your puppies are not in shelters. The last time my family bought a purebred puppy (a bullmastiff) the puppy contract stated that if, for whatever reason, we couldn't keep the dog, he must be sent back to the breeder for her to handle. That breeder still stays in contact with our family and tracked the progress of our show dog in the ring.

Those 1200 dogs all were bred by someone who obviously either doesn't care about their puppies and where they end up, or doesn't do their homework for adopters. Unfortunately for every breeder like you, there's a dozen more that *are* the problem. A quick search on my local craigslist shows a post at least every month with a new litter of basset puppies. I have a hard time believing someone selling their puppies on craigslist will know where they are in one month, much less 10 years.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,042 Posts
I hear and see breeders say how involved they are yet I have never once actually seen one out doing something worthwhile. The only thing I have witnessed is breeders occasionally taking in foster dogs for breed specific rescues and, admittedly, that is certainly great work.
While I admittedly am not able to do as much rescue work at the moment as I have in the past, I am perturbed that you do not find the many fosters I’ve taken in (at one point fosters outnumbered my own dogs), paid expenses for, placed, kept if I felt they were unplaceable, and held in my arms when it was time for them to go to the bridge to be “worthwhile”. I guess the hours I spend counselling people who’ve bought a Basset from a BYB, puppymill or pet store and now have nowhere to turn with their problems is not worthwhile either. Neither is the financial donation I sent to my rescue every year, I suppose (Basset rescue gets 99% of my charity money). I know I can’t match Sylvie’s admirable record, but I think I’ve helped somewhat and would like to do more when I have more resources.

Frankly, just as breeders don’t talk much about breeding to rescue contacts, I guess we also don’t talk much about our rescue work – we just do it.

FWIW, reputable breeders also do their part by keeping their dogs OUT of rescue – by screening homes, by being available to help buyers when problems arise, and by taking back dogs if they don’t work out – and by striving to produce quality, healthy, temperamentally sound animals that are less likely to have problems in the first place. According to people I’ve asked, the dogs coming into rescue from reputable breeders are about 0.23% of the total - that’s less than FIVE dogs per TWO THOUSAND. Rescues are hardly being overwhelmed by dogs from reputable breeders. And that’s breed-specific rescues. In shelters, where the majority of dogs coming in are mixed-breeds, the percentage would be even less.

Those 1200 dogs all were bred by someone who obviously either doesn't care about their puppies and where they end up, or doesn't do their homework for adopters. Unfortunately for every breeder like you, there's a dozen more that *are* the problem.
Yet you support legislation that actually creates more hardship for the good breeders than for puppymills/commercial breeders. In fact, I read that the majority of surrendered dogs come from BYBs having "just one litter" from their family pet - these laws will not affect them AT ALL. Why not just enforce the laws that are already on the books? The “hellholes” are ALREADY IN VIOLATION of these laws.

If you want to continue to criticize PETA and HSUS, tell me, what has the AKC, the driving organization for purebred dogs, ever done for rescue dogs? Acknowledged the breed specific rescue groups?
As mentioned above, AKC does not pretend to be involved in rescue, that is not its mission - nor are they collecting millions of dollars from the public by claiming to do so.

However, AKC has tightened up its registration requirements to the point that hordes of puppymills and BYBs are fleeing to “alternate” registries such as APRI and ConKC. But I don’t see rescue activists giving the Continental Kennel Club heat for enabling shoddy breeders to sell their otherwise unregisterable “purebred” puppies and even mutts (Bassetdoodles, anyone?) with “papers”.
AKC clubs, and their members, DO contribute to rescue in many ways. In fact, I’d bet money that club members do more to DIRECTLY help animals than either HSUS or PETA. They also contribute thousands of dollars to canine health research – where are HSUS and PETA on this one?

I don’t know why AKC did not want to share space, but frankly I am not in favour of mass adoption events as I think that it promotes “impulse buying”. Sure they manage to put a lot of animals out the door, but I would be interested in seeing statistics on how many of those animals are in the same “loving homes” a year or two later, let alone for a lifetime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
973 Posts
To clarify, I never claimed to support or oppose the law in question. My original point was that if someone wants to oppose the law, they should do so because of the change it will or won't bring and not just to fight the HSUS. I don't live in Missouri nor do I know a single person who does.

The AKC's opposition to spay/neuter laws and their whole stance on anti-spay and neuter directly affects the problem.

And let's not forget where the majority of the AKC's income comes from: puppy mills.
- Terrierman's Daily Dose -
In her article, Gretchen Bernardi notes that since 2001, the AKC has not increased the inspection and investigation staff of high volume breeders, and has simply ignored eight of the nine committee members who sought to get the puppy millers to "raise the bar" and change their way of doing business.

Instead of trying to get the puppy mill world to change, the AKC has joined them. The American Kennel Club is now a platinum member of the Missouri Pet Breeders, the very organization which launched the boycott against it back in 2000.

In addition, notes Ms. Bernardi, the AKC has removed the “do not buy puppies from a pet shop” advice from its website.
The AKC even entered into an alliance with Hunte Corporation at one point, one of the largest puppy mill distributors. It's no coincidence that Hunte Corp proudly displays the AKC logo on the front page of their website: The Hunte Corporation - Where Puppies Come First

By the way, the investigation that revealed and publicized Hunte Corporation's puppy mill practices and especially their sales to Petland was led by HSUS.

American Kennel Club - AKC Opposes Missouri Proposition B
Who do you think has a more vested interest in the law, the HSUS whose interests reach far beyond dogs (ie their recent lobbying to pass cage-free chicken laws in CA), or the AKC whose wallets are being filled by puppy mill registrations?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,558 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Why not just enforce the laws that are already on the books? The “hellholes” are ALREADY IN VIOLATION of these laws.
I really didn't want to post again on this topic, but I don't agree with the argument that "you just need to enforce the existing laws".

Yes,enforcement has been a problem here because it's been a more or less a "good old boy" culture. People got passes on violations because it was 'Uncle Eby's kennel' or 'Joe down the road'.

But in PA it was perfectly legal up until the passage of the 2008 dog law for kennel owners to euthanize their own dogs, perform surgery on their own dogs, have dogs that were left in tiny stacked wire floored cages 24/7 until they died never seeing the sun, and left to freeze in winter and swelter in summer in dark barns with inadequate ventilation or temperature controls. Among other things.

The new law forces breeders to make changes and upgrade their kennels- alot of them have chosen to close down operations rather than spend the money to upgrade- not surprising when these folks would rather shoot 80 dogs than follow an order to treat them for fleas with Frontline - and yes, that actually happened here in 2008.

If someone isn't willing to spend the money to provide decent living conditions for their dogs, then they shouldn't have a kennel license. Period.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top