animal protection: Fw: [petlaw] Those Billboards

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Walt Hutchens <waltah@earthlink.net>
To: mdaum@latimescolumnists.com; pet-law@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:14:00 AM
Subject: [petlaw] Those Billboards

http://www.latimes. com/news/ opinion/commenta ry/la-oe- daum16-2009jul16 ,1,3604606. column

Hi Ms. Daum:

I think those of us who support those billboards have to accept your
view that they're unclear. If YOU are confused, then probably others
are too. They were a breakthrough effort for the few thousand of us
who are fighting to preserve our rights to own and breed pets: this is
the first year we've had ANY way to reach the American mainstream with
the message and we're learning as we go.

You raise a number of interesting points in your column: Let me tackle
just a few of them.

> Let's back up for a second. I guess I can see why you'd put HSUS and
> PETA on the same billboard if you believe there's no such thing as pet
> overpopulation and no reason to push for spay and neuter laws. Both of
> these groups agree that there are far too many unwanted animals in the
> world.

It would be more precise to say "these groups BELIEVE that there are
far too many unwanted animals."

Of course ANY unwanted animal is 'too many,' but as a practical
matter, we do not have a nationwide oversupply of dogs. In a nation
with over 75 million owned dogs, something under 2 million/year are
now euthanized in shelters, and the number declines every year, as it
has done for about 40 years now. Furthermore few of that 2 million are
puppies (which would indicate oversupply) -- they are mostly adult
dogs that had homes but for one reason or another, lost them. Many are
either seriously sick or injured, many others are unsuited to be pets
due to temperament problems.

The remaining areas of genuine overpopulation -- significant numbers
of puppies are still put down because there aren't enough homes for
them -- are mostly in the south and almost entirely in rural areas.
Shelters in the rest of the country are increasingly transporting
these pups because THEY have more demand than they have locally
available puppies.

The danger now is a dog shortage, primarily in purebreds but more
generally in well bred family pet dogs of all descriptions. This
danger arises because of the unfavorable economics of breeding dogs on
a small scale and a rapidly growing body of laws against breeding of
any sort whatsoever. The fate of California's AB 241 which would ban
commercial-scale dog breeding may have been decided by the time you
read this (it was to be reconsidered in committee, today); unless it
passes, it'll be back next year.

Unfavorable economics of breeding? My wife and I bred and sold two
litters of whippets last year: We figure that each of the 16 we sold
included a donation of around $200 to the new owner. And our prices
are close to the top of the market.

Cats are another matter. Pedigree cats are only a tiny fraction
(something like 1%) of the total supply and due to the existence of
feral colonies in many areas, most shelters have more kittens than
they can possibly find homes for.

The solution to this will require agreement that either feral cats are
an introduced wild species, not to be counted with pet statistics at
shelters, or that these colonies should be brought under management in
'trap-neuter- return' programs operated by volunteers. Either approach
would require changes in laws and the necessary consensus isn't on the
horizon.

As to a 'reason to push for spay and neuter laws,' the fact is that
these laws INCREASE shelter euthanasia. This happens because many
owners who were responsibly maintaining intact animals are unable to
afford the surgery and abandon them. Scofflaw-type owners take no
action at all, so they produce just as many puppies/kittens as
formerly. Small scale breeders are shut down or driven away: We're the
folks who fanatically follow our puppies and kittens to be sure they
are not irresponsibly bred. So who replaces the pets we supplied?
People who DON'T follow up.

Not one locality that has enacted such a law (or claims to have one,
regardless of the facts) has made it work. The usual natural history
of these laws is that general enforcement is abandoned after a year or
so. As enforcement ends, the long term nationwide trend to lower
euthanasia rates (due to increasingly responsible ownership) resumes
and the promoters of the law then say "LOOK -- IT'S WORKING!" See
'Santa Cruz, California.' Or talk to the folks at PHS in San Mateo.

> But unless I missed the memo, they don't have a lot else in
> common. PETA is pretty radical in its concern for animals; it just
> went after the president for killing a fly. The Humane Society is a
> mainstream anti-cruelty and animal-shelter organization.

This is a common misconception: HSUS and PETA are the most prominent
members of the animal rights industry team. PETA is indeed radical --
often to the point where they seem foolish or even cruel. But their
isolated radicalism allows them to put issues on the public's map
without tarnishing the movement as a whole: They legitimize, which is
the first step to forcing change.

Because of their radicalism PETA has little or nothing to do with the
making of laws: Most lawmakers stay away from them.

PETA is also the critical link to the violent wing of the movement:
Their position is "PETA DOES NOT do anything violent." But they have
given money to individuals who committed violent acts and they do not
condemn such acts.

HSUS is often described as "PETA in a suit and tie." HSUS's posture
is solid, respectable, pursuing animal protection that (of course!)
everyone wants, via legislation and litigation as well as propaganda
supporting their campaigns. HSUS provides support to many other
organizations -- a hundred or more. Some of the most important are
HSLF -- the Humane Society Legislative Fund; HSVMA -- the Humane
Society Veterinary Medical Association; ALDF -- the Animal Legal
Defense Fund; the Doris Day Animal League; and the Fund for Animals.
The last two are now part of HSUS itself but maintain separate faces
for fundraising purposes.

There's a whole complex web, with many of the links being informal and
thus impossible to easily document. For example, retired game show
host Bob Barker drops a million dollars or so on another university
for a chair of animal (rights) law once or twice a year. That clearly
supports the HSUS campaign but I'm not aware of any formal ties..

In the last year HSUS has opened offices in a couple of dozen states
and regions of the U.S. so every new campaign now features not just
promos from HSUS President Pacelle but also from a regional or state
HSUS 'Director.' They typically have from one to six lobbyists per
state working on passing their bills. Add to that the costs of
ownership of one or more legislators in each state, the efforts by
HSUS-owned organizations of local humane societies which also lobby
for their bills and MUCH more ... they are the clear flagship of the
industry.

HSUS condemns violence and does not even attend conferences where
speakers may be expected to support 'direct action.' Of course they
don't NEED to support such actions, since other movement teammates do
so and the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) cells operate on next to
nothing anyhow, except for legal fees when they get caught.

It is telling that HSUS operates a tip line for dog fighting and
promises a reward for information leading to convictions, but does
nothing like that for animal rights violence.

> Grayson (echoed by Patti Strand, founder of the NAIA) claims that both
> groups are against even responsible breeding. When I called Wayne
> Pacelle, president of the Humane Society, he told me that wasn't the
> case at all. In fact, he said that when he went on "Oprah" to talk
> about puppy mills, his advice about getting a dog from a good breeder
> if you couldn't adopt from a shelter incurred the wrath of PETA, which
> does object to all breeding.

Guess what: HSUS lies like a rug. They're good at it and you're
solidly in the majority in not spotting what they're doing, but nearly
everything you hear from them is effectively a lie.

The truth is that HSUS (aka 'the Humane Society,' although they
operate nothing like your animal shelter and have no formal
relationship to such shelters) is now campaigning to ban the
commercial scale breeding of dogs nationwide. They've introduced these
ban bills in 20-some states in the last two years and have passed
them in about four, with several others (including CA's AB 241) still
in play. Typically these bills make you a commercial breeder subject
to USDA-type 'dog farm' regulations if you have 20 or more intact
females and set a cap of 50. A profitable 'family business' dog
breeder has 100-1000 females, so what this amounts to is "you can only
breed dogs commercially as a part time 'extra money' business."

These bills will be back in an increasing number of states every year
until either we educate enough lawmakers that they lose traction -- a
daunting challenge, given that we have no large organization on our
side -- or they pass enough of them to be able to make a case for a
federal law.

What of small scale non-profit or home hobby breeding? While anyone
who wants a quality purebred can still get one from a hobbyist if she
can wait six months to a year with no guarantee that there'll be
enough puppies in that planned litter, this is the twilight time for
this source. There are several reasons:

1. The costs. It is IMPOSSIBLE for 99% of home hobby breeders to break
even on a litter. Our own net cost (Timbreblue Whippets) for the 16 or
so puppies we sold last year was about $200 each, and because of the
tax status of hobby income, it is inconceivable that it could be much
better. Basically, we lost a little money on the cash cost of
producing those puppies, then we paid the U.S. and state governments
about $1/hour for the privilege of doing so.

Well, it's a HOBBY. But how many Americans can afford such a hobby?

2. The laws. In most urban and suburban areas there are pet limit laws
that only allow two to four dogs. Most such areas don't have (or don't
issue) kennel licenses that would allow more and when they do, they
come with regulations 'whenever we like' inspections of your home.
(The inspector will have been in diapers when you started breeding,
have only one day of training, may have come from another kennel with
who knows what diseases, and may have a visceral hatred of breeders.)
You cannot have a sound ongoing breeding program with such small
numbers: about six is the bare minimum and then only if you have no
'just a pet' animals and promptly place dogs that mature out of your
program.

Of course you could move to a rural area. But in most breeds, your pet
sales will be to suburban homes so 'rural' is a disadvantage. How many
rural areas have the well paying jobs needed to support such a hobby?
And there is no guarantee that your rural area won't pass a two dogs
per acre pet limit, even though they don't limit the number of horses
or cows you can keep. That's what happens as city and suburban folks
retire, move out, and get themselves elected to boards of supervisors.

3. The public attitude toward breeding. Basically, breeders are the
new, um, ethnic minority. The only people who approve of us are those
who got a dog from one of us and want another. The rest -- fueled by
an ongoing anti-breeding and anti-breeder campaign lead by HSUS are
ready to believe that most of us starve, beat, and finally stomp to
death our dogs. Oh, and we don't pay taxes on the many thousands of
dollars we make..

4. Lack of a substantial support organization. You'd think the AKC
would support hobby breeding wouldn't you? But for reasons that are
too subtle and complex to get into here, they rarely do more than lift
a finger to help us.

In sum, home hobby breeding is going away: Unless the few thousand of
us and our small organizations devoted to the defense of ownership and
breeding rights are successful, your grandchildren will have to be
wealthy to own an (imported) purebred dog.

That's the context in which Mr. Pacelle's "advice about getting a dog
from a good breeder" should be understood. His organization (mostly
informally) supports some laws making home hobby breeding more
difficult and does nothing to reverse or mitigate the rest of the
trends so he can perfectly well encourage people to buy from us
because he knows that we are in steady decline.

Hey, if GM goes under, you can just buy a Studebaker or Hudson.

There will always be dogs in America. But ten years further along the
current road there may be few to no purebred puppies at prices a
middle class family can afford. And within twenty years most family
pet dogs will be 'puppy moonshine' bred in secret and sold like corn
licker or pot, in brown bags in a corner of the Wal-Mart parking lot,
after dark, cash only, no shots, no guarantees.

We may win; a lot of us are working very hard to see that we do. But
HSUS lies are their most important product and as you have
demonstrated, they're damn good at it. Victory for our side is by no
means certain.

Have you seen this?

www.vidoosh. tv/play.php? vid=4360

And why is it on Iranian website? Well, because HSUS leaned so hard
on WSB-TV that they chased it off of all the US-copyright compliant web
sites. THAT is who we're dealing with ...

Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
http://www.timbrebl ue.com
http://www.pet- law.com