I belong to an online canine genetics discussion group whose purpose is to acquaint dog breeders with the dangers of inbreeding and the overuse of popular sires (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canine-Genetics). Many of the list members hail from the UK and Continental Europe, where in a number of countries, exhibitors can no longer show cropped and docked dogs; and where in one country, the UK, the BOB winners in several breeds were disqualified from Group competition at Crufts, THE prestigious championship show of the year, because they were deemed in a Kennel Club mandated inspection by a GP vet to have visible “health” issues such as ectropion.
After the Crufts disqualifications took place
there was a lot of discussion on the genetics list about breeds that have
become so “extreme” that their exaggerated features have literally become
health defects: e.g., super short noses in bulldogs and pugs that result in breathing difficulties; excessive skin folds in Shar-pei that contribute to
chronic skin problems; grossly over-angulated rears in GSD’s, etc. A number of posters
applauded the efforts of the UK KC to “regulate” UK
Ironically, at the same time on the same list,
other list members were urging us to post comments on the USDA (US Department
of Agriculture) website in opposition to a proposed USDA/APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) rule whose
unintended consequences would be to literally criminalize many small hobby and
show breeders, despite that it was supposedly aimed at regulating large-scale,
commercial “internet” breeders.
The juxtaposition of these two issues on the
list – both of which centered around regulating breeders in the name of animal
welfare – made me wonder if animal welfare advocates in other countries realized just how dangerous to our way of life the animal rights movement was here in the
United States. Surely no one is in favor of creating dogs whose extreme
features cause them physical distress; and perhaps AR activists in other
countries are only concerned with animal cruelty (?); but in the US
In this blog, two noted US hobby breeders – Sharyn
Hutchens of Timbreblue Whippets in Virginia and Judy Voran of Strawberry Boxers
in Arizona, explain how the AR movement works to achieve its aims in the US and
Canada:
The
Effect of the USDA/APHIS Proposal on Small Hobby & Show Breeders
Sharyn Hutchens, Timbreblue Whippets, Virginia
This APHIS proposal would apply to anyone who
owns or co-owns four (4) intact bitches, regardless of age, and requires that
the buyer personally go to the “premises” where the puppy was whelped and
raised to make the purchase.
For every "large internet breeder"
who will fall under this rule, the sacrifice will be dozens if not hundreds of
hobby breeders who are working very hard to keep our breeds healthy.
Furthermore, it will limit people's choices to 1) common breeds they can find
locally and breeders they can visit personally; or 2) large USDA inspected
breeders who will be able to ship the less common breeds.
We don't ship our puppies, but I have
occasionally met someone halfway -- usually someone who has bought a puppy from
us before. The owners from New York, Texas, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Florida who
have flown in to buy puppies from us and take them home in carriers (several of
them more than once) would now have to fly in, rent a car and drive 50 miles to
our home – our town does not have an airport – and possibly spend an overnight
before being able to get a flight back out. Or they could buy a whippet from a
pet store, I suppose. This would be better, how? The elderly couple from Maryland
My second breed is the Cirneco dell’ Etna, a
rare sighthound. There are only about 800 of them, I am told, in the country.
After much research, I recently bought my first one from a breeder who met me
at a show. The dog is simply delightful and the breeder and I have become close
friends. But if these regulations had been in place, I wouldn't own this dog.
First, the woman I bought her from is the co-breeder. The puppies were whelped
and raised to eight weeks at the home of the other co-breeder. So the woman who
sold me the puppy was technically selling me a puppy that was not "born
and raised on her premises." And of course, she could certainly not have
turned over the puppy to me at a dog show. The whole experience of buying this
puppy and learning to love a new breed has been the highlight of my year. But
it would be totally illegal if the regulations go into effect. How would this
have been better for anyone at all? Certainly it would not have been better for
me or my puppy.
Before my husband and I will give up our
privacy and allow federal inspectors into our home, we will quit breeding. It
has been my life for 30 years or more and I'm proud to say we have been strong
advocates of genetic diversity for years. But my freedom and privacy are worth
more to me even than dog breeding. As another list member pointed out, we do
not allow the federal government to come into our homes to inspect how our
children are raised – why on earth would we allow it simply because we breed a
litter of dogs every now and then? And before you say it, no, of course we have
nothing to hide. People come to our home frequently to meet our dogs, learn
about whippets, and occasionally to buy puppies. The point is that we are
Americans, and this country is based on freedom. How easily some of us would
give that away!
There will always be bad breeders, just as
there will always be child abusers, murderers, and rapists. We live in an
imperfect world. But bad breeders are the responsibility of animal control,
just as abusers, murderers and rapists are the responsibility of the police. We
do not allow the government to "inspect" innocent people just in case
something bad might be going on.
What bothers me most about the people who
believe these new regulations are a good idea is that they apparently believe
trading our constitutional rights for some minimal reduction in bad pet breeding
practices is okay. And the ironic part is that in the end, it is the animals
who will suffer. Typical animal rights.
And the other irony in this is that there have
been NO studies to discover whether "sight unseen internet sales" are
a serious problem, much less a large enough problem to justify this kind of
invasion of privacy. NONE. The USDA has some anecdotal evidence provided by
HSUS. Period. And we make regulations for thousands of breeders based on that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Judy Voran posted the following to the
Showboxer-L email list:
I am posting this link to a court ruling in California
involving the Humane Society of the United States because I think that members
of this list [Cangen] whose experiences are with their residence in other
countries do not understand the threat to animal ownership in the United
States. The threat is real and it is serious. Well-funded
organizations here in the US
_._,_.___
Tables turned on
Humane Society
LOS ANGELES DAILY TIMES
Jim Matthews, Outdoors
Posted: 07/26/2012 08:32:04 PM PDT
Updated: 07/27/2012 03:06:28 PM PDT
http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_21169780
The Humane Society of the United States, an organization that does next to nothing for animal shelters but sues, badgers and lobbies politicians and businesses into adopting its radical animals rights agenda, is getting a taste of its own medicine.
In a little-reported ruling by a judge in theDistrict of Columbia
After winning the case alleging mistreatment of elephants in its circuses brought by Friends of Animals (later merged into HSUS), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), lawyers at Feld filed a countersuit with a litany of charges ranging from bribery to money laundering to racketeering. The attorneys for the animal rights groups asked the judge to dismiss all
charges, but most remained because the evidence was overwhelming. So in early August, HSUS will be facing the music in a case that should attract the attention of hunters, ranchers, farmers and anyone impacted by HSUS' radical animal rights agenda.
District judge Emmet G. Sullivan did dismiss allegations of mail and wire fraud, but he did so only because Feld didn't have standing to file this charge. His ruling all but set the stage for a class-action RICO lawsuit against HSUS for misrepresenting itself in its fundraising campaigns across the nation. This lawsuit easily could bankrupt HSUS, put it out of business and send some of its top executives to prison.
For the first time, a group has fought back against the animal rights and environmental extremists who have been setting policy in this country for the past 20 years or more. Now, instead of getting rich off their lawsuits and fundraising schemes that misrepresent their efforts and accomplishments, they could be driven out of business. These groups have cost the farming and ranching industry jobs and raised the price of products we buy every day. They are behind the efforts to ban sport hunting across the nation. They have forced state wildlife and fishery agencies to waste countless millions of dollars on lawsuits and have spearheaded policies and legislation like the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which has ruined livelihoods in recreational and commercial fishing without helping marine resources.
These groups operate with surly arrogance and believe they are above the law. Thankfully, that is not the case. Stay tuned.
The Humane Society of the United States, an organization that does next to nothing for animal shelters but sues, badgers and lobbies politicians and businesses into adopting its radical animals rights agenda, is getting a taste of its own medicine.
In a little-reported ruling by a judge in the
After winning the case alleging mistreatment of elephants in its circuses brought by Friends of Animals (later merged into HSUS), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), lawyers at Feld filed a countersuit with a litany of charges ranging from bribery to money laundering to racketeering. The attorneys for the animal rights groups asked the judge to dismiss all
charges, but most remained because the evidence was overwhelming. So in early August, HSUS will be facing the music in a case that should attract the attention of hunters, ranchers, farmers and anyone impacted by HSUS' radical animal rights agenda.
District judge Emmet G. Sullivan did dismiss allegations of mail and wire fraud, but he did so only because Feld didn't have standing to file this charge. His ruling all but set the stage for a class-action RICO lawsuit against HSUS for misrepresenting itself in its fundraising campaigns across the nation. This lawsuit easily could bankrupt HSUS, put it out of business and send some of its top executives to prison.
For the first time, a group has fought back against the animal rights and environmental extremists who have been setting policy in this country for the past 20 years or more. Now, instead of getting rich off their lawsuits and fundraising schemes that misrepresent their efforts and accomplishments, they could be driven out of business. These groups have cost the farming and ranching industry jobs and raised the price of products we buy every day. They are behind the efforts to ban sport hunting across the nation. They have forced state wildlife and fishery agencies to waste countless millions of dollars on lawsuits and have spearheaded policies and legislation like the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which has ruined livelihoods in recreational and commercial fishing without helping marine resources.
These groups operate with surly arrogance and believe they are above the law. Thankfully, that is not the case. Stay tuned.
