“Recently the Humane Society of the United States announced the formation of its Dog Breeders Advisory Council.  This council is purportedly comprised of “responsible breeders” and was formed to work with the HSUS to help the public to identify responsible breeders and to avoid supporting puppy mills. Additionally, members provide input and advice on public policy decisions.

I (we) urge AKC to employ immediate action to counteract this latest HSUS tactic that is clearly directed at eliminating hobby breeders.  This very alarming move by the HSUS has the imminent potential to narrow the public’s perception of a responsible breeder to a very prejudicial, HSUS-controlled definition.  It further opens the door of opportunity for HSUS to include in new proposed legislation such constraints as the issuance of “breeding licenses” only to HSUS-approved breeders.

It is imperative that HSUS not be considered by the public as experts on the intricacies of raising the purebred dog.  I (we) respectfully request that AKC take immediate action to counteract this new threat to the art, science, and constitutional right to breed dogs.”

Share!

Tweet

Follow

I was very naïve.  I bought a show dog, and then another.  I decided I wanted to be a breeder.  I didn’t know then that “breeder” was a dirty word.  I wanted other people to enjoy this breed.  I wanted a hobby that I could grow old with, and that would keep me young.  I wanted many things, but I did not anticipate becoming, in the public’s eye, a “criminal.”

If someone would have told me, more than a decade ago, that I would be spending hours and hours fighting anti-dog, anti-breeder legislation at the local, state, and federal levels, I would have laughed in their face. Had I known that I might be subject to harassment, the threat of unannounced inspections of my very home, be faced with ever-increasing licensing fees, been faced with legislation that might include bank references and criminal background checks just to enjoy my hobby, I might never have entered the dog world.

No hobby that I know of has been subject to the harassment that dog breeders have.  I know of no other hobby where one must be looking over their shoulder at all times, worried that they might be violating a law simply because a dog’s nails might be longer than what subjective laws might consider long, or for having a piece of tartar on an old dog’s tooth.  I never in the world would have thought that my dogs’ veterinary care might be subject to legislation.  I didn’t anticipate having to dot my I’s and cross my t’s when it came to recording my dogs’ expenses.  And never in the world did I ever believe that fingers would be pointed or that “breeder” would become a dirty word.

Where did this all start?  Well, after more than a decade of research and experience, most of this harassment has been initiated by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).  HSUS has, through its lobbying efforts and its misleading advertising, been trying to criminalize dog, cat, rabbit, hamster, bunny – you name it – breeding for decades.  And the rigid legislation that HSUS helps to write has one chilling effect – to eliminate the home hobby breeder.

I’m a “to each his own” kind of person.  Personally, I like dogs.  And cats.  And bunnies.  I also like to eat meat, dress in cotton, and wear leather shoes.  If someone else doesn’t like that – such as HSUS and PETA – well, that’s ok with me, but leave me alone to make my choices.  HSUS has sunk its talons into the home hobby breeders, and they are going after agriculture – part of our great country’s very existence.

HSUS is in direct violation of the Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.  Of it’s $19 per month donation, only 1 percent of that goes to direct help for animals.  The rest of its vast assets are tied up in lobbying efforts, padding its own pension plans, and disproportionate salaries for its executive staff.  This corporate bigot must be stopped before we all lose our rights…to breed companion animals, to eat the food we enjoy, and to keep the Government out of our homes.

Please join me in petitioning the White House to investigate HSUS for noncompliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 by logging on to https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/investigate-humane-society-united-states-non-compliance-lobbying-disclosure-act-1995/42RtSR6W.

Every vote helps.

Share!

Tweet

Follow

HSUS is an extreme animal rights group operating under a guise of credibility, making them a far more formidable foe than PETA or any other animal activist organization. They achieved their biggest victory yet with the passage of Prop 2 in California, which has jeopardized the livelihood of farmers across the Golden State. HSUS is following this success by promoting similar ballot measures in other states, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and South Dakota. Their inevitable goal is to eliminate animal agriculture by outlawing commonly used agricultural practices that have been designed to keep livestock safe and healthy. Further legislative victories by HSUS will result in a significantly more expensive and less safe food supply for American consumers.

Not only is HSUS trying to ruin agriculture, it is also misleading the public into donating money to them at the expense of the good people who run our nation’s animal shelters. HSUS is in no way affiliated with local animal shelters, including those called “Humane Societies.” Thousands of people have donated money to HSUS believing they help stray animals find homes, but they do no such thing. When animal shelters ask for financial assistance from HSUS, they turn a deaf ear.

HSUS markets itself as a mainstream, moderate organization, but in reality, it represents the most radical and cunning minds of the animal rights movement. Don’t let what happened to California happen to your home state. Don’t let money meant for your local animal shelter fund extremism. Spread the truth about HSUS and urge your lawmakers to vote against its fanatical animal rights agenda.

Donate to your LOCAL animal shelter or your breed rescue.

Share!

Tweet

Follow

Introduced in the federal  House by Rep.  Jim Gerlach (R-PA) in 2/11 as House Bill 835 and mirrored in the Senate by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) as Senate Bill 707, this draconian bill has gained silent momentum and now has 141 co-sponsors in the federal House of Representatives.

Supposedly targeted at high-volume breeders, this bill has ramifications for even those who may not have a single breeding female on their property.  One must remember that bills such as this target not just  Norwegian Elkhound breeders, but also breeders of more popular breeds.  As such, this bill targets NOT the high-volume, substandard breeders, but the kennels of quality who hold our breed standards dear.  The breeders  who have, throughout the years, produced dogs of exceptional quality and who do so by maintaining co-ownerships on quality bitches whom they have bred.

The PUPS act defines a high-volume breeder as one who has “an ownership interest in one or more breeding female dogs and sales by any means of more than 50 offspring of these breeding female dogs in any 1-year period.

Sounds like a lot, right?  But let us dissect this.

Under PUPS, any female 4 months or older is considered a breeding female.  How many 4-month-old bitches are breedable?  Nine to 10 months is normal for first heat.

“Ownership interest” is not defined.  Co-ownerships could be included – EVEN if the bitch does not reside on your property.  And what is “ownership interest”?  Do you have a clause in your contract to receive a pick puppy from a breeding?  That’s an ownership interest.  Does your contract include a clause that says if the dog cannot be kept, it should be returned to the breeder?  Ownership interest.    Does your contract indicate that you have a say in the potential sire?  Ownership interest.

This bill is targeted at our best and brightest breeders.  Over the course of many years, master breeders have placed, on co-ownerships, or with other “ownership interests”, many quality bitches.  Perhaps not in our breed, which has low numbers, but in other breeds, it would not be unheard of to have  -  say – 8 bitches from the ages of 2 to 8 producing that “magic number” of 50 puppies.  And the master breeder –by virtue of having an “ownership interest” in these bitches, magically becomes a high-volume breeder – even if there is not a “breeding”  female on the premises!

Another term used in the PUPS bill is “sells or offers to sell” via any means…internet, phone, newspaper, it doesn’t matter.  Anyone with a website might fall under this definition.

There are numerous other problems with the bill, including engineering requirements that most of us can’t meet if we home-raise our puppies, “primary enclosures” that are out of reach of most homraised pups, exercise requirements that are not “repetitive”  or “goal-based” , impacts on the rescue community,

This bill would require licensing and inspection of law-abiding citizens, in many cases opening our homes up to “inspection”.  It would make criminals out of ordinary folk, forcing us to PROVE our innocence – in a country that says we are innocent until proven guilty.

This bill is based on numbers, and not on the quality of care.  Yes, there are substandard breeders, and they are to  be abhorred.  But they are far outnumbered by caring, dedicated breeders.   This bill.provides NO funding for the additional burden of inspecting and licensing caring breeders.  USDA and our powers-that-be should be concentrating on enforcing the laws that currently exist – NOT on making criminals out of innocent people.

Please contact your representative and express your opinion.  Don’t think someone else will do it…YOU need to!

Share!

Tweet

Follow

Years ago, quality dog breeders were viewed with respect and admiration.  Large, elegant, fully-staffed kennels boasted fit, healthy, and happy dogs.  The proprietors of these kennels were considered to be knowledgeable, responsible dog men and women.

Enter the Animal Rights Agenda.  Suddenly, dog breeders as a whole became evil puppy millers, out to make a buck, indifferent to a dog’s health and happiness.  Pet limit laws, bandied about by the Animal Rights agenda, were put into motion, severely limiting a breeder’s ability to continue producing the happy, healthy, sound dogs that had been so sought after in the past.  Fearful of being branded a “puppy mill,” established kennels curtailed their breeding operations, downsized, and as a result, made puppies of quality less available to the general public.  Even so, the Animal Rights Agenda continues to seek to restrict the breeding of purebred dogs even further, using their very deep pockets (a result of misguided donor support) to lobby legislators to pass their anti-breeding agenda.  In many areas of the country, restrictions on breeding are so burdensome and costly that only the very wealthy or the very corporate breeders continue to breed dogs.

The American Kennel Club, perhaps in an attempt to reverse the declining number of dog registrations (which is likely a direct result of the onslaught by the Animal Rights Agenda) designed the Breeder of Merit program.  This program was intended to offset those breeders who strive to produce healthy puppies from those who do not provide health testing or gain breed or working titles on their dogs.  Breeders of Merit must agree to provide health testing as recommended by their Parent Clubs on all dogs used in their breeding program, and must have a history of obtaining breed or working titles on their dogs.  In addition, Breeders of Merit must be “demonstrate a commitment to ensuring 100% of the puppies produced are AKC registered.”

The response to this program has been mixed, with some breeders not willing to be identified as Breeders of Merit simply because of the threat from the Animal Rights Agenda; others signed on willingly thinking the distinction might assist in the fight against the Animal Rights Agenda.  Unfortunately, after many breeders achieved the Breeder of Merit distinction, AKC chose to increase its litter registration fees, locking Breeders of Merit into a nearly 100% increase in their registration fees.

The fancy is quickly becoming a privilege accorded to only those wealthy enough to afford it.  The Animal Rights Agenda continues to push for ridiculous legislation that would force unrealistic engineering standards on small breeders, continues to lobby for additional licensing for breeders, and continues to paint all breeders into the same dim light as the substandard breeders (who do exist, but not in the enormous numbers touted by the Animal Rights Agenda).  Those few hardy breeders who intend to continue with their passion find that compliance with the ridiculous engineering standards and the cost of multiple licenses (city, county, state, breeding, foster, rescue) has become prohibitive.  The cost of showing a dog to its championship, essential to an excellent breeding program, has far exceeded what the average family is able to spend.  And now litter registrations will become prohibitively expensive.

Truly, the dog fancy is fast becoming a sport that only the wealthy can afford.  At a recent regional specialty, the youngest active breeder was 40.  This, unfortunately, makes sense, in that young couples or individuals just starting out on their own don’t have the financial resources to take part in the fancy.  Space requirements implemented by many municipalities are out of reach for many people (such as the requirement for at least an acre of land in order to have a kennel of 3 dogs – even if they are Chihuahuas). Multiple licensing requirements (city, county, state, federal, and in some cases, foster home licenses), and unfathomable housing requirements (which are so prohibitive that the raising of a litter in the home is impractical – and in the home is where they SHOULD be raised) all contribute to the nearly insurmountable expenses involved in the breeding of dogs.  And even the AKC, our friend and ally, has shifted the burden of expense onto us, the responsible breeders, by implementing higher registration fees.

The Internet has made the names and locations of breeders readily available to the Animal Rights Agenda.  While the Internet is a valuable tool, it has also been shown to work against the dog fancy – including rescue groups.  In fact, this author overheard a conversation in which a community officer told a shelter worker that he wanted to use Facebook to track down people who he could ticket for having dogs “running at large” – in other words, he wanted to use “lost” postings on Facebook to issue citations to people who have lost their dogs.  In Wisconsin, a dog that was posted multiple times by a rescue as adoptable was “counted” in their total each time it was listed, and as a result the rescue organization was fined for not complying with their local limit laws.

The sport of purebred dogs has reached a precipitous fork.  We who hold our hobby and fancy dear to us must make a choice.  We either run away from this awful storm, or we batten down our hatches and prepare to fight it.

We need to welcome and nurture new breeders into our fold.  We need to communicate with our registry when their increased fees threaten our own financial ability to continue to breed and show our dogs.  And we need to fight the Animal Rights Agenda, as a united front.  Not as piecemeal, “oh, someone else will do it.”  We need to fight it as an army united in our quest to continue our hobby and passion.

We should not feel the need to unload our dog food in the dark of night lest we be branded puppy mills.  We should not feel the need to defend our decision to have a litter of puppies.  We should not hang our heads in shame when someone asks us if we are breeders.

We should not apologize for who we are and what we do.

Share!

Tweet

Follow

Most pet owners in the US have heard of HSUS, PeTA, and other animal organizations. Their names are household words.  But are they pet-friendly? Here are some quotes from our animal rights organizations:

My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture. — J.P. Goodwin while executive director of the Coalition Against the Fur Trade (As quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group).

It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership. — Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, “In Defense of Animals,” Spring 1997.

Liberating our language by eliminating the word ‘pet’ is the first step … In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA’s policy to oppose the keeping of animals as ‘pets.’ — New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, “Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!” Good Dog! February 1991, p.20.

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 — Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s President, quoted in The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. …One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding — Wayne Pacelle – Former National Director of Fund for Animals.

How dare we, as pet owners, lobbyists, and politicians bow down to these words!  Humans and animals have had a mutually compatible relationship for eons.  In the process of human history, we have selected animals for traits that were beneficial to us.  The elkhound helped the Vikings hunt moose – thus staving off hunger for humans.  The shepherding dogs tended our livestock against wolves – thus staving off hunger for humans.  The arctic dogs provided transportation in desolate areas of the world – thus staving off hunger for humans.  Every breed of dog has been bred for a purpose.  The haughty arrogance of the Animal Rights movement fails to acknowledge that our various species – including domesticated livestock – are a part of human history – a history that should and MUST be preserved.  Conscientious breeders are truly historians, preserving a part of our human history.  In the process, they also produce companion animals who love and adore them, and are loved back.

I hope every pet owner, breeder, lobbyist, and politician will realize that the Animal Rights movement means just that….ANIMAL RIGHTS MEANS NO ANIMALS LEFT.

Share!

Tweet

Follow