Blaming the Pet Trade, While Ignoring Supply-Demand

Here we go again. The emotional pat answers to stopping the purported killing of “stray” animals and how we must all adopt, adopt, adopt.  Now as you may know if you ever read what we post, we have been involved in rescue for years, and have also worked with breeders that know what they are doing, and have found homes for likely over 870 animals in the past.

That being said, it does NOT mean we jump on the AR bandwagon filled with propaganda, glittering generalities, and all the hogwash that is used by HSUS for example. Let’s look at what this Oregon attorney who has an attorney blog site named Animals attorney blog, claims:

“Spaying, neutering, shutting down puppy mills, and educating buyers on avoiding supporting the “pet trade” are all better methods of reducing homeless companion animal populations. As pro bono legal counsel to nonprofit animal rescue and support groups like the Feral Cat Coalition of Oregon, know first hand that spay/neuter helps significantly. Reducing both natural and artificial breeding is the only real answer. The alternative would be mass killing, on a scale approaching that of factory farms. In Oregon alone, for example, nearly 18,000 cats were euthanized in 2010, many because there simply were more cats than available homes.”

Well guess what. 93% or more of all cats were altered in Australia. They still had too many feral cats. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Shame, shame, shame. So all that altering isn’t necessarily going to do it. There will always be MORE cats than people want.

One cannot just compare apples to oranges or stray felines to show animals, pet store animals to rescue, or purposely bought or bred working animals, to shelter discards. Yes, altering cats will be a good idea, given that ferals may be too prolific. If they were serious about elimination of cats, they could just kill the females? BUT “reducing [both natural] and artificial breeding is the only real answer” is just plain absurd when in reality, the ARs lament against  “breeding” is targeting the “Pet Trade” because ARs don’t believe in SELLING or BUYING an animal, because they believe animals are NOT property. Not all ARs will say that, but that is their belief.

And since feral cats make up the largest group of animals routinely killed in CA, killing the feral females would eliminate a lot more cats than altering.  Of course most people are against that, but since ARs are into killing for humane reasons, that would seem to be a logical reason. There is little to no value in feral cats, although they may keep the rat population down. A feral cat is not essentially a pet. So claiming that killing all the 10,000 cats has little merit when used in measuring over abundant shelter animals,  as it is highly likely the 10,000 was not mostly composed of pet house cats.

For anyone who really understands the animal population in relation to the owned animals and purchased animals, v the discarded animals and unwanted animals, there is definitely NOT the correlation that ARs claim to be existing. Instead, ARs like to use the play on words, and on generalities that do not reflect reality, since their entire premise is not really based on reality, but on hand selected, emotional diatribe which is then carefully sorted into mantras, compartmentalized slang. PMs, “abuse” and “profiteering.” …and let’s not forget their videos that they MUST use to impact the brain.  Brainwashing in action.

 

Most killed shelter dogs are indeed, the product of oops pregnancies, from owned dogs that people either did not want or could not afford to alter, or  they did not realize could  the dog could get pregnant twice a year.

In any event, while it is agreed that such animals as puppies are usually quickly taken in by friends, co-workers and neighbors, many of these pups are not what the new owners actually wanted, but were taken for free or maybe at a low cost.

This fact herein, indicates that dogs entering a shelter are usually not  purposely purchased at a store or from an expensive breeder, they are usually not small dogs of 8lb or less, they are usually NOT designer mutts, highly coveted breeds or mixes (such as Yorks, Malts, Havanese, Bichons, Mini Poodle, “teacup” sized, any small white fluffy female dog of 7lb or less) and they are definitely not usually any dog bought from a pet store at all, because all these dogs have in common is that there are highly sought after, relatively expensive, and very cute to many owners.

SI Exif

Knowing that stray dogs are usually just the opposite– mixed breeds, mutts of unknown origin, often from a lower economic area, owned by people who know little of animal training, owned by younger people without stability, owned by people who cannot afford vet care, owned by single family parents, obtained only because kids wanted dog now they don’t want it, and the like.  This is not us just making up situations, this has been shown in studies done on shelter population relinquishments. Even assuming some of the owners were not telling the truth, we have done rescue long enough to hear all the reasons why people don’t keep animals. It is normally more of a social welfare issue, involving job loss, divorce, forced move, no pet policy, and overall economic issues.

Because of this obvious fact and disparity in the source of such animals, it is quite apparent that TARGETED altering of the dogs and cats that are most likely to end up dead in a shelter, is the REAL answer, not the emotional answer, not the AR pat glittering generality answer.

If you have too many of something you cannot get rid of, and have to kill them off (not saying we believe in killing everything)– then it makes plain sense to NOT have as many of that type of thing.  Namely, the types that will never find homes.

Plain black cats, feral cats, sick cats. Dogs that attack people, dogs that bite kids, dogs that are aggressive to owners, dogs that have too many behavior issues, dogs that require too much medical expense. This isn’t being emotional, this is being realistic.  But since ARs cannot be realistic, because they overwhelmingly assign every animal with the same badge of being very worthy, each animal then becomes one in the bean count, regardless of how worthy that animal is in real society.  Let’s face it, a beat up heap of junk beater car is not going to be as worthy as the newer sportscar, and the demand is not ever going to be comparative.

ARs conveniently ignore the supply-demand factor because it does not SUIT their emotional beliefs, it clashes with their belief that no one should be allowed to make a profit off selling property/merchandise, including all animals and animal products.

There is a difference between comparing the worthiness when killing, because ARs most definitely think that killing is fine, as long as they do it kind of quickly, like PETA kkkilling (not a typo) 98% of animals taken in,  killed at 98% most years. Using their $9,000 freezer to store ’em.

So if it’s OK for ARs (like HSUS) to condemn an entire shelter of animals and wipe out 1,000 animals in one fell swoop, why is it not ok for the shelter to kill any animals if no one want them?  As we know, it is apparently “OK” in the law to kill them because the AR inspired Hayden Law in CA PAYS shelters MORE to kill the animals than for them to be adopted.  Most people didn’t know that.  Until recently, that’s how the law worked, until Gov. Brown stopped part of the law and now shelters are not getting more $$$ if the animal is NOT sold.

The finding claimed that allowing homeless animals  3 more days of time to find a home did not result overall in increasing the adoption rate.  The primary answer to that is because in most CA shelters, you are not going to find huge numbers of highly desirable dogs or small dog breeds with exception of chihuahuas which are often not a good choice for kids.  Thus 3 more days might increase a dog’s chance if someone actually wanted it, BUT if it was not a desirable dog  to most people in the first place, (too old, sick, not friendly, not good looking, not a good temperament, maligned breed, not housebroken, etc) then probably no amount of time would make it so.

WHEN a highly desirable exotic type breed, expensive purebred, or small white female dog unexpectedly is put in the shelter, or when seized breeder dogs are put in shelters (say 100 of them) there is commotion and absolutely huge, huge interest in such dogs, simply because most people want this type of dog, but not all want to PAY for them. In Los Angeles, when a mini poodle was put in the shelter, they auctioned it off for $750 or $800 bucks.  CA shelters are NOW offering animals at certain times (perhaps holiday season) for $20 (twenty bucks) and NOT $85 or $125.  And that is the way it should be, if you really want to save rather than to kill them.

IM000792.JPG

Most of the shelters costs in operating are NOT due to the killing of animals, but goes to health care for the workers, pension designations, built in pay raises or COLA,  insurance and overhead. The kill solution and the time it takes to kill the animals (as one can read about in the Euthanasia book by HSUS) — can be done swiftly, in a cheerful lighted room and puppies can be killed in two minutes.  Why any shelter would even need to kill a puppy at all should be a rare occasion, yet HSUS’ book brags that killing can be a team effort and is not a bad thing. Seriously.  Go read the book.

Realistically, hard economic times makes it doubly hard on those with less income. We are regular readers of free ads both online and in print, and there is a most definite increase in the GIVING away of desirable animals across the board. Small pets that would always fetch a commanding retail price are being given away, animals that used to bring $500 are $300, and even puppies are free, including small types.  In general, desirable smaller animals are what the majority of the public wants, with at least over 50% of people NOT wanting a large dog. In many shelters, mostly all they have are large mixed breed mutts and in other shelters, dogs that may resemble generic pitbulls (even if they aren’t pitbull or mixed pitbull.)

The poor generic pitbulls have the odds against them obviously, since the ARs don’t want people to really own them (PETA and HSUS) — but at same time, many ARs will stand up for the pitbull type dog. Peta believes they should all be killed, other groups just don’t want anyone to own them, and still others rant that every bull is a man killer.  Of course each dog is individual and for a bull to be animal or have dog-dog aggression is not considered a fault in the breed. However it can pose issues for multi dog households– and many people that obtain bulls don’t realize the potential issues they may face.  A very strong line of bulls could be quite animal aggressive, as can other breeds with guardian lines, suspicious tendencies, and inherent aggression tendency.  However, NOT every dog will necessarily display that tendency, no matter what line it was bred from. Books such as the Encyclopedia of Dog Breeds profiles breeds “at a glance” on topics such as exercise requirements, affection level, friendliness toward dogs, toward other pets, and toward strangers; ease of training, watchdog ability, protection ability, grooming requirements, cold and heat tolerance.

Applying this knowledge to shelter animals, we are at a disadvantage because we don’t necessarily know WHAT the dog’s lineage is for sure, unless it is very obvious. Even then, it can be dicey. However, most people like to choose dogs by how they look and not how they necessarily act. Temperament of the dog is key yet many owners never think of the temperament, and this leads to discarding of dogs. Shelters should stress dog safety with children and proper assessment of  dogs they do have, temperament wise. Most shelters do the best they can, and most dogs are likely not walking timebombs.  But we have seen and do see ARs grab the worst off dog, simply to use it for marketing purposes and fund raising.

To us, rehoming dogs is a goal, not saving the dog to raise money. The more that find homes, the better. Unfortunately, when the worst medical condition dogs are picked out, they take up most of the money, thus leaving less for all the other dogs.  Again, the AR method is to perhaps assign an even MORE worthy designation to the ultra sick, ultra injured, and ultra unwanted.

This emotional approach, as in most AR tactics, results in emotional pandering and propaganda  methods to ignore the reality and focus on poor little animal. It does not however, RAISE the numbers of saved animals finding new homes, and THUS the propaganda approach does exactly the opposite, and finds even less animals a new home. As does hoarding, which ARs have been known to do as well, especially with unwanted cats.

ARs then take their jump on the bandwagon gun, and shoot it loudly, claiming that  “Spaying, neutering, shutting down puppy mills, and educating buyers on avoiding supporting the “pet trade” are all better methods of reducing homeless companion animal populations.”  Yeah, yeah, yeah— well the truth and reality is that “supporting the pet trade” is a viable and economic feature of the United States’ free enterprise system.

Shutting down PMs is simply a chant to stop the breeding of animals, period.  ARs don’t believe in breeding, remember?  Well what if they were not alleged PMs and were housed in a reasonable manner?  That would not be good enough because again, as we know, it is actually NOT the circumstances that ARs are really after, it is the breeding itself and the selling  of the animals.

Which is why ARs supposedly try and close down the pet stores, they don’t really CARE where or how the animals got there. They claim ALL pet stores have PM dogs yet when HSUS listed their purported PM listed pet stores who allegedly had acquired dogs from deficient breeding facilities, there were almost none listed.  That is because they are NOT deficient in mass numbers, but HSUS and Best Friends and ASPCA simply USE purported PMs as the marketing, emotional, glittering generality, by putting one or two cases on TV and Animal Planet, advertisements, and PRESTO, every breeder is a PM!!

This bull is clearly proven to be nothing but propaganda marketing and emotionalism rolled up in a slick campaign to gain funding, as when HSUS has attempted to SUE Petland and Hunte Corporation (which are legal businesses) sure enough, in AZ Federal Court, HSUS couldn’t even survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Hunte’s attorneys quickly made mincemeat of HSUS “RICO” allegations.  Petland did the same but we believe maybe one or two claimed causes of action may have survived, but we doubt very much that the case ever would get to trial, as HSUS had to ADVERTISE to obtain these alleged owners, so they could sift through them, claiming they bought an animal that was not well, or was alleged to be ill.

If thousands and thousands of people were buying all these purportedly sick animals, HSUS wouldn’t NEED to advertise for such clients.  HSUS devises methods of claiming to PAY people for ratting out others, whether it’s an alleged sick animal, alleged fighting, alleged domestic violence, and yes, HSUS does target CHILDREN with their arsenal of children’s books and elementary school booklets.  It all used to be listed on the HSUS site until HSUS was reported to the IRS for too much lobbying, then HSUS had to change their entire site [it now resembles a child’s website] and eliminate much of their information which indicated bragging about making new laws, new seizure cases, their SWAT team victories and their running with the Federal government, trying to influence Congress and legislators; HSUS still has a direct link on their site we believe, which links directly to emails to Congress when HSUS is pushing for a new law.

Lobbyists are lobbyists and must be registered.  A lobbying group is not a 501(c)(3) charity group.  There are regulations for lobbying groups and there are regs for charity groups. Although HSUS claims it’s just a charity group, reality shows that it’s a lobbying group with AR marketing, fundraising, where almost 40% of income is devoted to fundraising, giving it a pretty low rating for a “charity.” Essentially, HSUS is really NOT a charity, but is a corporation acting like it could be one.  HSUS spends a huge amount of time on litigation in courts, supposedly with nearly 60 ongoing cases, and supporting and filing new state laws on abuse nearly every single year.

In 2009 alone, HSUS had filed about 184 state laws. With over 10,000 pro bono hours, and tons of free attorney time, it’s no wonder HSUS has written most of the laws re animal abuse across the country and in some cities directly.  HSUS has been the loser on 3 KEY Supreme Court cases.  All within a period of time of less than 2 years (downer pigs, violent videos for kids, and historical dog videos on dog fighting)…. But the telling actions of HSUS and ASPCA are clearly shown in their 11 year lawsuit with Feld Entertainment, wherein Federal RICO civil charges are pending against them, which command treble damages if proven.  HSUS and ASPCA can battle another 5 years on RICO but they will end up losing. Maybe losing their 501(c)(3) would be the best result for most animals.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s