# The Purebred Paradox Conference



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

*The Purebred Paradox: On the Health and Welfare of Pedigree Dogs *


Wow! This conference sure has increased the "chatter" on breeder boards.
 
Purebred Paradox Conference Details : The Humane Society of the United States


Here's a list of speakers at the conference:

https://www.regonline.com/custImages/301954/HSISP Documents/BIOs.pdf


For more information on the subject:

The Purebred Paradox : The Humane Society of the United States


----------



## k9Cracker (Feb 22, 2006)

H$U$ = I'm not interested at all. 

Might be interesting to go to, especially since it is so close to me but I imagine I would have to walk out about 5 minutes into their "discussion."


----------



## pammy4501 (Aug 8, 2007)

Wouldn't give HSUS the time of day, and here are two reason why:


The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a "humane society" in name only, since it doesn't operate a single pet shelter or pet adoption facility anywhere in the United States. During 2009, HSUS contributed only *3.64 percent* of its budget to organizations that operate hands-on dog and cat shelters. *In reality, HSUS is a wealthy animal-rights lobbying organization *(the largest and richest on earth) that agitates for the same goals as PETA and other radical groups.
Beginning on the day of NFL quarterback *Michael Vick's* 2007 dogfighting indictment, HSUS raised money online with the false promise that it would "care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case." The New York Times later reported that HSUS wasn't caring for Vick's dogs at all. And HSUS president Wayne Pacelle told the Times that his group recommended that government officials "put down" (that is, kill) the dogs rather than adopt them out to suitable homes. HSUS later quietly altered its Internet fundraising pitch.
They have lost all credibility with many people. And all of this pedigree dog info is old news, much of which was discussed in a British documentary a few years ago. I personally wouldn't touch any of this with a ten foot pole!


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

What Pam said.


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

pammy4501 said:


> Wouldn't give HSUS the time of day, and here are two reason why:
> 
> 
> The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a "humane society" in name only, since it doesn't operate a single pet shelter or pet adoption facility anywhere in the United States. During 2009, HSUS contributed only *3.64 percent* of its budget to organizations that operate hands-on dog and cat shelters. *In reality, HSUS is a wealthy animal-rights lobbying organization *(the largest and richest on earth) that agitates for the same goals as PETA and other radical groups.
> ...


HSUS is not a local animal shelter. They are a national organization that gives some of their money to local organizations - but their mission is to help animals through lobbying, lesgislation and education. They believe that legislation gets to the root of the problem (ie funding spay/neuter programs and spay/neuter education will decrease the number of animals in shelters.) 

To me radical is the existence and treatment of animals on puppy mills, factory farms, fur farms and killing animals for sport. To me radical is the unspeakable suffering that is inflicted upon these animals.

HSUS and PETA have completely different philosophies, goals and approaches. HSUS is about passing laws to help animals and PETA is abolitionist, they believe animals should not be exploited at all. 

HSUS is the driving force behind most animal protection legislation and lobbying. Thank God they have many loyal supporters and the money to help animals, they are up against some of the most powerful lobbies there are. 

If they don't help the animals - who will, for Gods sake.


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

Here is a description of the HSUS 
About Us: Overview : The Humane Society of the United States

Here are the accomplishments of Wayne Pacelle, CEO and all he has done for animals.
Wayne Pacelle : The Humane Society of the United States

I don't get why some people only care about the welfare of dogs and cats when there are many species of animals that are suffering and need help. HSUS has helped more animals than any other animal protection organization in history.

Some things HSUS does:
Advocate public policy on behalf of animals, enforce existing policy. (They've helped create more animal protection laws than any other group)
Leading disaster relief (they got awards for how they responded after Hurricane Katrina - very unlike how our government responded to its own citizens).
Habitat and wildlife protection

Provide direct care for thousands in their sanctuaries, emergency shelters, wildlife centers and mobile clinics.

For shelters:
Provide shelter standards, evaluations, training programs, national campaigns to promote spay/neuter and adoption, direct support, and national conferences. Co founded The National Federation of Humane Societies, a trade organization for shelters.

Run major campaigns targeting dog fighting, puppy mills, factory farming, inhumane hunting practices like canned hunts captive exotic animals, the slaughter of American horses for export to other countries, and the clubbing of baby seals and other animals for the commercial fur trade. 

Someone please explain what is radical and bad about this organization or the people who run it? 
Someone please explain why only dogs and cats deserve protection?


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

When an organization suggests euthanasia over rehoming, I would call that radical. Please don't believe everything they say.


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

Another side to consider ...

Watch-Dogging the Dog-Watchers - David Martosko - Townhall Conservative

HumaneWatch


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

Cosy said:


> When an organization suggests euthanasia over rehoming, I would call that radical. Please don't believe everything they say.


 
Are you talking about Michael Vick's fighting dogs? A breed that can be dangerous? Dogs that have been trained to fight other dogs?

Think about the risk of them hurting or killing another dog after they've been trained to fight. 

Think of the liability if they did.

I've read of at least one dog that was rehabilitated and I would think it would take a special person and a special circumstance to watch the dog the rest of it's life to make sure the dog didn't hurt another dog or person.


----------



## pammy4501 (Aug 8, 2007)

HSUS’s senior management includes a former spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a criminal group designated as “terrorists” by the FBI. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle hired John “J.P.” Goodwin in 1997, the same year Goodwin described himself as “spokesperson for the ALF” while he fielded media calls in the wake of an ALF arson attack at a California veal processing plant. In 1997, when asked by reporters for a reaction to an ALF arson fire at a farmer’s feed co-op in Utah (which nearly killed a family sleeping on the premises), Goodwin replied, “We’re ecstatic.” That same year, Goodwin was arrested at a UC Davis protest celebrating the 10-year anniversary of an ALF arson at the university that caused $5 million in damage.
A 2008 Los Angeles Times investigation found that HSUS receives less than 12 percent of the money raised on its behalf by California telemarketers. Professional fundraisers keep the rest. If you exclude two campaigns run for HSUS by the “Builda-Bear Workshop” retail chain—which consisted of the sale of surplus stuffed animals (not really “fundraising”)—HSUS’s yield shrinks to just three percent. This is typical. In 2004, HSUS ran a telemarketing campaign in Connecticut with fundraisers who promised a return of “zero percent” of the proceeds. The campaign raised over $1.4 million. Not only did none of that money go to HSUS, but the group paid $175,000 for the telemarketing work. Similar filings exist in Massachusetts, New York, and other states. In 2008 HSUS collected more than $86 million in contributions, but spent more than $24 million on fundraising.
HSUS’s heavily promoted U.S. “boycott” of Canadian seafood—announced in 2005 as a protest against Canada’s annual seal hunt—is a phony exercise in media manipulation. A 2006 investigation found that 78 percent of the restaurants and seafood distributors described by HSUS as “boycotters” weren’t participating at all. Nearly two-thirds of them told surveyors they were completely unaware HSUS was using their names in connection with an international boycott campaign. Canada’s federal government is on record about this deception, saying: “Some animal rights groups have been misleading the public for years … it’s no surprise at all that the richest of them would mislead the public with a phony seafood boycott.” A documentary director also caught an HSUS film crew abusing a dying seal while they shot a 2007 fundraising video on the ice floes of Atlantic Canada.HSUS raised $34 million in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, supposedly to help reunite lost pets with their owners. But comparatively little of that money was spent for its intended purpose. Louisiana’s Attorney General shuttered his 18-month-long investigation into where most of these millions went, shortly after HSUS announced its plan to contribute $600,000 toward the construction of an animal shelter on the grounds of a state prison. In 2009, Atlanta ABC affiliate WSB-TV reported that public disclosures of the disposition of the $34 million in Katrina-related donations added up to less than $7 million.
After gathering undercover video footage of improper animal handling at a Chino, CA slaughterhouse during November of 2007, HSUS sat on its video evidence for three months, even refusing to share it with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. HSUS’s Dr. Michael Greger may have perjured himself before Congress, testifying that the San Bernardino County (CA) District Attorney’s office asked the group “to hold on to the information while they completed their investigation.” The District Attorney’s office quickly denied that account, declaring that HSUS refused to make its undercover spy available to investigators if the USDA were present. Ultimately, HSUS chose to release its video footage at a politically opportune time, as it prepared to launch a livestock-related ballot campaign in California. Meanwhile, meat from the slaughterhouse continued to flow into the U.S. food supply for months.
I do not believe that any group proporting to "protect animals" should be advocating euthanasia at all. Many of the Vick dogs that HSUS wanted "put down" have been sucessfully rehabilitated and placed in suitable homes.
http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/post/michael_vicks_dogs_are_still_breathing_no_thanks_to_hsus/


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

puppy lover said:


> Someone please explain what is radical and bad about this organization or the people who run it?
> Someone please explain why only dogs and cats deserve protection?


 
Some breeders and their friends are highly critical of the HSUS because some of the HSUS "animal welfare" legislation is affecting them. One can't believe everything said from that camp either, so please, please research what you read. There's even breeder groups who meet who try to counter what the animal welfare groups are doing. It's easy to look online to see who's doing that too. (Cough cough)

I don't agree with everything the HSUS does either, but I'm glad someone is battling for animal welfare. 

I really wish breeders would do some soul-searching about what they're doing. I wish they would take to heart the research that shows that inbreeding and closed registries (show dogs) has severely affected the health of purebreds. I don't think any of the experts would say that every purebred dog is going to be unhealthy; however, you have to look at the whole picture of purebred health to know that something has gone awry. (Some breeds are in worse shape than others.) That's what the conference is about. 

I love the beauty of most purebred dogs, but knowing what I now know about genetics, I could never in good conscience intentionally breed a purebred dog. 

The HSUS conference speakers who are doing the Purebred Paradox conference aren't a bunch of HSUS members, they're an international team of experts who are concerned about the health and welfare of purebred dogs. HSUS is sponsoring the event.


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

A lot of people ... breeders, non-breeders, friends and enemies are critical of HSUS because there's a lot to be critical of. HSUS is not supporting the local shelters and is not supporting research on animal health and genetics. They could do so much good with the money they receive in donations. So sad ...


----------



## pammy4501 (Aug 8, 2007)

vjw said:


> Some breeders and their friends are highly critical of the HSUS because some of the HSUS "animal welfare" legislation is affecting them. One can't believe everything said from that camp either, so please, please research what you read. There's even breeder groups who meet who try to counter what the animal welfare groups are doing. It's easy to look online to see who's doing that too. (Cough cough)
> 
> I don't agree with everything the HSUS does either, but I'm *glad someone is battling for animal welfare. *


 I think they have lost sight of that objective as some large organizations can. They have become a very effective money making machine and not enough of that is actually getting to animals or better animal legislation. (ie. we still have puppy mills.) And IMHO (cough cough), it takes some chutzpah to call out purebred dogs, their owners and breeders on a site dedicated to a specific purebred dog, and the good breeders that provide those dogs.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

pammy4501 said:


> I think they have lost sight of that objective as some large organizations can. They have become a very effective money making machine and not enough of that is actually getting to animals or better animal legislation. (ie. we still have puppy mills.) And IMHO (cough cough), it takes some chutzpah to call out purebred dogs, their owners and breeders on a site dedicated to a specific purebred dog, and the good breeders that provide those dogs.


I've been an owner of four purebred dogs and have changed my views since looking at the genetics.

For those of us who are keeping up with the genetics? Are we supposed to keep our secrets like breeders have done for ten years or more?

Here's a link to wikipedia on HSUS's 2010 Governance and expenses status. There's references to the sources on wikipedia's site:

_Governance and expenses_

_A __nonprofit__, charitable organization, The HSUS is funded almost entirely by membership dues, contributions, foundation grants, and bequests. It receives a small amount of federal money in support of particular programs._

_The HSUS is governed by a 27-member, independent Board of Directors. Each Director serves as a volunteer and receives no compensation for service._

_In 2010, The HSUS’s program expenses comprised 77.9% of its budget.[85] The HSUS’s financial efficiency ratios exceed the __Better Business Bureau__ Wise Giving Alliance (BBBWGA) standards which require that program expenses as a percentage of total expenses be 65% or greater. The HSUS meets all 21 BBWGA financial and administrative standards,[86] and all 20 of the BBB's Standards for Charity Accountability.[87]_

_Using different estimates of fundraising expenses and efficiency, the __American Institute of Philanthropy__ (AIP) issued a "D" grade to the financial practices of The HSUS. AIP's rating system heavily penalizes charities for possessing large assets or maintaining more than three years' operating expenses in reserve.[88]_

_For four years, the HSUS received the top four-star rating from Charity Navigator, but in 2010 was downgraded to three stars.[89] The HSUS's international affiliate, __Humane Society International__, received a one-star rating from Charity Navigator.[90]_

_For 2009, The HSUS was ranked at 168 in the Chronicle of Philanthropy's Philanthropy 400.[91]_


----------



## k9Cracker (Feb 22, 2006)

H$U$ is NOT an animal welfare group. 
They are an animal rights group. 
BIG difference

"One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” — Animal People News, May 1993 
----Wayne Pacelle

Humane Society of the United States: Funding sources, staff profiles, and political agenda

If you want to support an animal WELFARE organization, try 
NAIA
Animal Welfare | Animal Rights | National Animal Interest Alliance
or PetPAC
PetPAC


As far as that whole, pit bulls are dangerous stuff... Maltese can be dangerous too! 
Maltese terrier joins dangerous dog list


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

vjw said:


> I love the beauty of most purebred dogs, but knowing what I now know about genetics, I could never in good conscience intentionally breed a purebred dog.


That's a good thing! If it's so bad in the dog world to breed a Maltese to another Maltese, or a Greyhound to another Greyhound, then why is it okay in the people world to breed a Caucasian to another Caucasian or an African to an African or an Asian to an Asian? How do the genetic principles differ so that one is doomed and the other will thrive?


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

pammy4501 said:


> mills.) And IMHO (cough cough), it takes some chutzpah to call out purebred dogs, their owners and breeders on a site dedicated to a specific purebred dog, and the good breeders that provide those dogs.


 
On second thought about this, this is a public forum it's not fair to give the public a one-sided view of any aspect of dog ownership, especially when there's many experts who may have differing opinions. I've always tried to give advice on what experts are recommending and try to always give links to sources of my information, and many times it's not been the usual "parroting" you see on dog forums. The advice I give is rarely my opinion and if it is, I let you know.

If a future pet owner or a current pet owner looks at all sides and decides they want a purebred maltese and/or they want to wait past the socialization period to do their puppy training, and/or they want to feed raw and/or they want to contribe to the HSUS . . . .
that's their business.

By the way, I've never contributed anything to the HSUS nor am I a member.


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

MaryH said:


> Another side to consider ...
> 
> Watch-Dogging the Dog-Watchers - David Martosko - Townhall Conservative
> 
> HumaneWatch


The author of this article represents The Center for Consumer Freedom - they are a front group for the worst animal abuse industry offenders including
Puppy Mills, Factory Farms, Fur Farms, Canadian Seal Slaughter industry, etc.

Their lies have been exposed by independent news media, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, The Washington Post, CBS News and 60 minutes.

The Center for Consumer Freedom put out a brochure called 7 Things You Didn't Know About The HSUS. It is full of distortions, lies and half truths. Two years ago the group retracted what they said and put it on their website. 

The brochure was put out shortly after the Passage of California's Proposition 2 which called for the halt of confinement of factory animals.
Rick Berman, the executive director of The Center for Consumer Freedom said, "...It is crucial that a key broad cross section of agriculture leaders start managing this nationwide threat now, before it is too late or too expensive to match HSUS dollar for dollar." You can see the full quote in the link. 

Here is a response to their lies, including how HSUS really handled the Michael Vick case.

The HSUS Responds to CCF : The Humane Society of the United States


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

pammy4501 said:


> HSUS’s senior management includes a former spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a criminal group designated as “terrorists” by the FBI. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle hired John “J.P.” Goodwin in 1997, the same year Goodwin described himself as “spokesperson for the ALF” while he fielded media calls in the wake of an ALF arson attack at a California veal processing plant. In 1997, when asked by reporters for a reaction to an ALF arson fire at a farmer’s feed co-op in Utah (which nearly killed a family sleeping on the premises), Goodwin replied, “We’re ecstatic.” That same year, Goodwin was arrested at a UC Davis protest celebrating the 10-year anniversary of an ALF arson at the university that caused $5 million in damage.
> A 2008 Los Angeles Times investigation found that HSUS receives less than 12 percent of the money raised on its behalf by California telemarketers. Professional fundraisers keep the rest. If you exclude two campaigns run for HSUS by the “Builda-Bear Workshop” retail chain—which consisted of the sale of surplus stuffed animals (not really “fundraising”)—HSUS’s yield shrinks to just three percent. This is typical. In 2004, HSUS ran a telemarketing campaign in Connecticut with fundraisers who promised a return of “zero percent” of the proceeds. The campaign raised over $1.4 million. Not only did none of that money go to HSUS, but the group paid $175,000 for the telemarketing work. Similar filings exist in Massachusetts, New York, and other states. In 2008 HSUS collected more than $86 million in contributions, but spent more than $24 million on fundraising.
> HSUS’s heavily promoted U.S. “boycott” of Canadian seafood—announced in 2005 as a protest against Canada’s annual seal hunt—is a phony exercise in media manipulation. A 2006 investigation found that 78 percent of the restaurants and seafood distributors described by HSUS as “boycotters” weren’t participating at all. Nearly two-thirds of them told surveyors they were completely unaware HSUS was using their names in connection with an international boycott campaign. Canada’s federal government is on record about this deception, saying: “Some animal rights groups have been misleading the public for years … it’s no surprise at all that the richest of them would mislead the public with a phony seafood boycott.” A documentary director also caught an HSUS film crew abusing a dying seal while they shot a 2007 fundraising video on the ice floes of Atlantic Canada.HSUS raised $34 million in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, supposedly to help reunite lost pets with their owners. But comparatively little of that money was spent for its intended purpose. Louisiana’s Attorney General shuttered his 18-month-long investigation into where most of these millions went, shortly after HSUS announced its plan to contribute $600,000 toward the construction of an animal shelter on the grounds of a state prison. In 2009, Atlanta ABC affiliate WSB-TV reported that public disclosures of the disposition of the $34 million in Katrina-related donations added up to less than $7 million.
> After gathering undercover video footage of improper animal handling at a Chino, CA slaughterhouse during November of 2007, HSUS sat on its video evidence for three months, even refusing to share it with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. HSUS’s Dr. Michael Greger may have perjured himself before Congress, testifying that the San Bernardino County (CA) District Attorney’s office asked the group “to hold on to the information while they completed their investigation.” The District Attorney’s office quickly denied that account, declaring that HSUS refused to make its undercover spy available to investigators if the USDA were present. Ultimately, HSUS chose to release its video footage at a politically opportune time, as it prepared to launch a livestock-related ballot campaign in California. Meanwhile, meat from the slaughterhouse continued to flow into the U.S. food supply for months.
> ...


Yes, this information is from the Center for Consumer Consumer Freedom - the front group for puppy mills, factory farms, the fur industry,
etc. Please read my post to Mary which explains that this group has been outed for their false accusations and lies, including Michael Vick's case.

This group initially formed to represent the tobacco industry to promote that smoking was healthy - and this was after many studies came out proving otherwise. 
They do not care about human or animal suffering, just their bottom line.


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

k9Cracker said:


> H$U$ is NOT an animal welfare group.
> They are an animal rights group.
> BIG difference
> 
> ...


The animal organization you think is good represents the corporate interests of puppy mills, agriculture and other animal exploiters. 
That is not what most would call an animal welfare organization.


----------



## k9Cracker (Feb 22, 2006)

I have a question...

How do you define "Puppy Mill"??

Just curious.


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

puppy lover said:


> The author of this article represents The Center for Consumer Freedom - they are a front group for the worst animal abuse industry offenders including
> Puppy Mills, Factory Farms, Fur Farms, Canadian Seal Slaughter industry, etc.
> 
> Their lies have been exposed by independent news media, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, The Washington Post, CBS News and 60 minutes.
> ...


I posted links that say something different about HSUS than HSUS says about itself but never said one side is right and the other wrong. I not taking sides, merely offering a different viewpoint for those who may want to give consideration to a number of positions before making their own judgments.

What is fact is that HSUS raised $34 million for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts of which they can account for $7 million actually going toward those relief efforts. What happened to the remining $27 million is, in fact, currently being investigated by the IRS (a case number has been assigned by the IRS). To the best of my knowledge no determination has been made yet. We should all hope and pray that donors were not duped.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

MaryH said:


> I posted links that say something different about HSUS than HSUS says about itself but never said one side is right and the other wrong. I not taking sides, merely offering a different viewpoint for those who may want to give consideration to a number of positions before making their own judgments.
> 
> What is fact is that HSUS raised $34 million for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts of which they can account for $7 million actually going toward those relief efforts. What happened to the remining $27 million is, in fact, currently being investigated by the IRS (a case number has been assigned by the IRS). To the best of my knowledge no determination has been made yet. We should all hope and pray that donors were not duped.


 
Copied and pasted from Wikipedia re: Hurricane Katrina:

On the third anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, The HSUS reported that it had spent or committed $7.3 million on direct response and efforts to reunite people and lost pets, $8.3 million on reconstruction grants for 54 humane societies in the Gulf Coast region, $2.3 million on reimbursement grants to 130 humane societies from around the country that assisted in the response. The society also reported that it had committed $800,000 and $900,000, respectively, to shelter medicine programs at the veterinary schools of Louisiana State University and Mississippi State University, and $600,000 to the construction of an emergency overflow shelter at the Dixon Correctional Institute in Jackson, Louisiana. The HSUS reported that it had directed $2.76 million in in-kind contributions to the relief effort, and attracted another one million dollars from other entities in grants to Gulf Coast societies.[40]


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

MaryH said:


> That's a good thing! If it's so bad in the dog world to breed a Maltese to another Maltese, or a Greyhound to another Greyhound, then why is it okay in the people world to breed a Caucasian to another Caucasian or an African to an African or an Asian to an Asian? How do the genetic principles differ so that one is doomed and the other will thrive?


 

The problem with show dog breeding is closed registries, limited gene pools, inbreeding, popular sire syndrome, founder effect, population bottlenecks, etc.

If human reproduction were to be the same as show dogs, we would be locked up in cages and forced to mate with the most handsome and prettiest of our relatives. It wouldn't matter if this were our siblings, parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins or distant relatives. Makes me sick to my stomach to consider these possibilities. 

Thank goodness this doesn't happen often even in a society where we are free to pick our own mates. It's called incest when it does. 

There's a natural inbreeding avoidance innate in both humans and most animals. In wild dog populations where they can do their own natural selective breeding, it is uncommon for them to mate with a relative. This is true of wolf populations as well.

In human populations were there are limited gene pools, there are higher levels of heritable/genetic diseases. You can google whatever group you think would have small gene pools and you'll find this to be true. I've personally read a little about increased hertiable diseases in Amish populations.


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

This is why your views always sound so extremist. You bunch all dog breeders into the same stereotype. You take the worst problems in the breeding community and apply that to the whole, while dismissing any of the positive. Admittedly, there are breeders who make poor choices and fall into traps like the ones you mentioned of popurlar sire syndrome. However, with statements like "_locked up in cages and forced to mate with the ...prettiest of our relatives_" You are making a statement that does not accurately reflect the vast majority of breeders I know. First, most of my show breeder friends do not force their dogs to lives out in cages, nor do they "force" them to mate, nor do they select pairs only one the basis of looks. Most of the breeders I know look at the health issues in the line as well as the breed standard. It is a fact that linebreeding can and has elimated certain genetic diseases. 

No animal, human, canine or otherwise ever is 100% clear of genetic junk. But understanding that and working toward goals of eliminating it is what makes me respect the diligence of breeders. 

As to the issue of human populations choosing their mates, in many cultures around the world there is much less genetic diversity. Cousin marriage is common throughout large swaths of the world. This has been true for centuries and remains true today. 

_American society is so biased against inbreeding that many Americans have a hard time even conceiving of marrying a cousin. Yet, arranged matches between first cousins (especially between the children of brothers) are considered the ideal throughout much of a broad expanse from North Africa through West Asia and into Pakistan and India. www.isteve.com/cousin_marriage_conundrum.htm_

Of course it is true that overly limiting any gene pool is dangerous to that species, conscientious breeders do look for the best avenues to retain genetic diversity while improving on desirable breed traits. 

We are here on a Maltese forum because we love dogs who have been bred to enhance certain traits and features. The goal of breeding for those features and at the same time working as diligently as possible to reduce the genetic problems that may arise in the process are what makes an ethical breeder to me.

If we go back to human populations, how many humans get genetic tests before they marry to ensure that they will not pass on genetic disease to their off-spring? How many look at a complete health history of their ancestors before they marry? God forbid, there might be a history of cancer on both sides of the family tree. Perhaps we should say those folks should not have children. 

Well in dogs, that is exactly what conscientious breeders try to do. They look at the health information available to them long before they decide who is prettiest. 

Obviously, you have your biases and have made up your mind. I don't suppose anything anyone says here will change your view that all breeders are bad. 

I take a different view. While I fully appreciate that there are many bad breeders, and a lot of bad choices, those who are diligent and have the best intentions deserve our admiration. :aktion033:


----------



## pammy4501 (Aug 8, 2007)

CloudClan said:


> This is why your views always sound so extremist. You bunch all dog breeders into the same stereotype. You take the worst problems in the breeding community and apply that to the whole, while dismissing any of the positive. Admittedly, there are breeders who make poor choices and fall into traps like the ones you mentioned of popurlar sire syndrome. However, with statements like "_locked up in cages and forced to mate with the ...prettiest of our relatives_" You are making a statement that does not accurately reflect the vast majority of breeders I know. First, most of my show breeder friends do not force their dogs to lives out in cages, nor do they "force" them to mate, nor do they select pairs only one the basis of looks. Most of the breeders I know look at the health issues in the line as well as the breed standard. It is a fact that linebreeding can and has elimated certain genetic diseases.
> 
> No animal, human, canine or otherwise ever is 100% clear of genetic junk. But understanding that and working toward goals of eliminating it is what makes me respect the diligence of breeders.
> 
> ...


 :goodpost:
Well said Carina!


----------



## edelweiss (Apr 23, 2010)

CloudClan said:


> This is why your views always sound so extremist. You bunch all dog breeders into the same stereotype. You take the worst problems in the breeding community and apply that to the whole, while dismissing any of the positive. Admittedly, there are breeders who make poor choices and fall into traps like the ones you mentioned of popurlar sire syndrome. However, with statements like "_locked up in cages and forced to mate with the ...prettiest of our relatives_" You are making a statement that does not accurately reflect the vast majority of breeders I know. First, most of my show breeder friends do not force their dogs to lives out in cages, nor do they "force" them to mate, nor do they select pairs only one the basis of looks. Most of the breeders I know look at the health issues in the line as well as the breed standard. It is a fact that linebreeding can and has elimated certain genetic diseases.
> 
> No animal, human, canine or otherwise ever is 100% clear of genetic junk. But understanding that and working toward goals of eliminating it is what makes me respect the diligence of breeders.
> 
> ...


:goodpost::goodpost: better said "GREAT POST!"


----------



## Lacie's Mom (Oct 11, 2006)

pammy4501 said:


> Wouldn't give HSUS the time of day, and here are two reason why:
> 
> 
> The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a "humane society" in name only, since it doesn't operate a single pet shelter or pet adoption facility anywhere in the United States. During 2009, HSUS contributed only *3.64 percent* of its budget to organizations that operate hands-on dog and cat shelters. *In reality, HSUS is a wealthy animal-rights lobbying organization *(the largest and richest on earth) that agitates for the same goals as PETA and other radical groups.
> ...


Ditto


----------



## Lacie's Mom (Oct 11, 2006)

CloudClan said:


> This is why your views always sound so extremist. You bunch all dog breeders into the same stereotype. You take the worst problems in the breeding community and apply that to the whole, while dismissing any of the positive. Admittedly, there are breeders who make poor choices and fall into traps like the ones you mentioned of popurlar sire syndrome. However, with statements like "_locked up in cages and forced to mate with the ...prettiest of our relatives_" You are making a statement that does not accurately reflect the vast majority of breeders I know. First, most of my show breeder friends do not force their dogs to lives out in cages, nor do they "force" them to mate, nor do they select pairs only one the basis of looks. Most of the breeders I know look at the health issues in the line as well as the breed standard. It is a fact that linebreeding can and has elimated certain genetic diseases.
> 
> No animal, human, canine or otherwise ever is 100% clear of genetic junk. But understanding that and working toward goals of eliminating it is what makes me respect the diligence of breeders.
> 
> ...


 Very, very, very well said. :thumbsup:


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

vjw said:


> The problem with show dog breeding is closed registries, limited gene pools, inbreeding, popular sire syndrome, founder effect, population bottlenecks, etc.
> 
> If human reproduction were to be the same as show dogs, we would be locked up in cages and forced to mate with the most handsome and prettiest of our relatives. It wouldn't matter if this were our siblings, parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins or distant relatives. Makes me sick to my stomach to consider these possibilities.
> 
> ...


 
Again, this isn't so with reputable conscientious breeders. They DO care about more than beauty. They DON'T constantly inbreed. So much info taken out of context and probably to benefit those who would have breeding abolished.
Carina's post says it best.


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

vjw said:


> If human reproduction were to be the same as show dogs, we would be locked up in cages and forced to mate with the most handsome and prettiest of our relatives. It wouldn't matter if this were our siblings, parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins or distant relatives. Makes me sick to my stomach to consider these possibilities.


Joy, there's really no point in rebutting this scenario with you directly other than to mention that in the past couple of days in more than one thread you have insulted and questioned the actions and integrity of more than one person on this forum. If your mind is made up, so be it. Hopefully others reading your recent posts are more open-minded.

For anyone else reading this thread, I'd hate for you to think that what is quoted above is what really happens in a "show breeder home." Males are not selective, could care less about looks, and could care less who might be related to them. Females in season are not selective, could care less about looks or who they might be related to. They all willingly want to participate in the act of breeding. There are no cages used to force or prevent breeding in my home. Females in season hang out in one area of my house while my male hangs out in another area. No one is caged, no one is in a basement, barn or shed, and I'm not doing things differently from any of the other show breeders I know. Health and relationship are considered, first and foremost, by all ethical breeders when planning a breeding. To be led to believe otherwise is unconscionable.


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

Mary, I've said it before, but I'll keep saying it. You, as well as the other breeders on here, are what I expect from an ethical breeder. I am almost positive that the Purebred Paradox is aimed at puppy mill breeding. I will find out for sure. I can't speak for Joy but I cannot imagine that her posts were aimed at you, CloudClan or Bellerata. I believe there are several others but can't remember names. I hope she makes herself clear. I know for sure that HSUS supports ethical breeders and breeding practices, now anyway!

As far as funding genetic research for sound breeding, who knows, maybe HSUS will fund it one day. I think for now there is too much on their plate.
But you're right, these puppies deserve to be born free of genetic problems. I think the puppy mills are causing most of them though and bad breeders too.

I found this information and I thought it was really interesting and it explained a lot to me. I hope you will appreciate it as much as I did learning about it. It rung real and true with me and I wonder if it will with you.
Myth: HSUS Wants To Ban Breeders HumaneWatch Info

Also, here is the Katrina information. This group was about to be sued so they had to retract the lie about the 7 million. They have many lawsuits against them because of their lies. The Center for Consumer Freedom is set up to be a non profit group but are funded by corporate animal abusers like puppy mills, agribusiness, etc. They have various names like watchdog and humanewatch but they are all the same sleazy man, the same one who campaigned against Mothers Against Drunk Driving because he was payed big by the alcohol lobby. The same one who spread lies about the Michael Vick case. They are slick and fooling very smart people. 
Myth: HSUS Wants To Ban Breeders HumaneWatch Info

I would be happy to carry on a conversation in a pm as it can get heated with others comments, and I'm not looking for debate, rather conversation. If you would like to respond feel free to do so on here or pm me.
Sunnie


----------



## allheart (Oct 3, 2008)

vjw said:


> Are you talking about *Michael Vick's* fighting dogs? A breed that can be dangerous? Dogs that have been trained to fight other dogs?
> 
> *Think about the risk of them hurting* or killing another dog after they've been trained to fight.
> 
> ...


Joy, my heavens, you break my heart with your views. How on earth could you advocate putting down these precious dogs who were abused, mishandled, mistreated at the hands of humans? Should children that come from abused homes be put down for fear they could do the same harm when they become adults?

I respect all opinons and viewpoints and share mine with you in hopes that you can see another prospecetive, not so that I am right, but for the love of these special ones.

I think by my many post here on SM, you pretty much have a really good idea how much I love animals, dearly, so much so, I thank God above, for those who have been called to be ethical breeders, so this wonderful breed does exsist, and brought into this world with loving, caring and knowledgeable hands.

Should ever human own a pet? Absolutely not, we know that and I often wonder why some do get a dog, based on the lack of care they give and worse. So should every pet owner be put in the same category? No.

What an unintentional heartbreaking upsetting insult, to those who do what they do out of love.

Joy, think about what you are saying. I mean that kindly.

Michael Vicks dogs were and are victims, like so many of other dogs out there, that we don't know about.

No, the breed is NOT dangeours, some owners ARE.

My Flakey (RIP), a puppymill baby, bless his heart, I had him for 15 wonderful years, should I have put him down because YES he would bit a stranger. Never did, but he could have. We worked with him, bless his heart and was the most loving guy, that brought us so much joy, and shouldn't have had to bare the sins of where he came from. NO dog should.

Joy, sadly you must have had some very sad painful experiences with your previous pets, for that I am so sorry. I have too, but never ever would I paint all who bring these precious ones into the world with the same brush. My goodness no.

Oh if only the furry ones could have a voice.


Joy, just sharing where I am coming from.

PLEASE don't do precious dogs such a disservice in lumping all breeders together. My goodness Joy, no. Please know, there ARE breeders who love those under their care so much and do right by them, because they have such a love for the breed, more than words can say. Oh and the heartaches they quietly suffer and the joy they do bring, they do exsist Joy, they do. For me to say that, is ALOT.

Where would you suggest getting a puppy from, aside from adopting, if not for these wonderful breeders?



CloudClan said:


> This is why your views always sound so extremist. You bunch all dog breeders into the same stereotype. You take the worst problems in the breeding community and apply that to the whole, while dismissing any of the positive. Admittedly, there are breeders who make poor choices and fall into traps like the ones you mentioned of popurlar sire syndrome. However, with statements like "_locked up in cages and forced to mate with the ...prettiest of our relatives_" You are making a statement that does not accurately reflect the vast majority of breeders I know. First, most of my show breeder friends do not force their dogs to lives out in cages, nor do they "force" them to mate, nor do they select pairs only one the basis of looks. Most of the breeders I know look at the health issues in the line as well as the breed standard. It is a fact that linebreeding can and has elimated certain genetic diseases.
> 
> No animal, human, canine or otherwise ever is 100% clear of genetic junk. But understanding that and working toward goals of eliminating it is what makes me respect the diligence of breeders.
> 
> ...


Carina so well said :aktion033:



MaryH said:


> That's a good thing! If it's so bad in the dog world to breed a Maltese to another Maltese, or a Greyhound to another Greyhound, then why is it okay in the people world to breed a Caucasian to another Caucasian or an African to an African or an Asian to an Asian? How do the genetic principles differ so that one is doomed and the other will thrive?


Mary exactly. :aktion033:

Joy, I don't know you, but my gosh, please be open to other views for the sake of these precious ones.

I have many friends who own a loving Pitt.

I respect all opinons, it's how we learn, but please give dogs a voice, a chance to be, to live and to be loved and embrace those who lovingly, with great care, give them life.

Heartbreaking.


----------



## allheart (Oct 3, 2008)

allheart said:


> Joy, my heavens, you break my heart with your views. How on earth could you advocate putting down these precious dogs who were abused, mishandled, mistreated at the hands of humans? Should children that come from abused homes be put down for fear they could do the same harm when they become adults?
> 
> I respect all opinons and viewpoints and share mine with you in hopes that you can see another prospecetive, not so that I am right, but for the love of these special ones.
> 
> ...


 
Joy, a little off topic but wanted to share this with you. Only reason I am posting on this thread is to share what is in my heart in hopes it touches hearts.




 
Joy, take a look at this video.


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

Mary, I wanted you to know I spoke with the woman in charge of The Pure Paradox conference. 
This conference is not for breeders using standards and proper breeding rules - so it's not for any ethical breeders such as the ones on here.

From everything I've seen of you I think you are an awesome breeder and human being. Your integrity shines through here very brightly. I do understand why you became upset with Joy. I hope she is able to let you know if she was or was not directing her comments at you or any other breeders on here. We don't need any more misunderstandings.

I'm also hoping my links will shed a new light about HSUS. It's my wish to see all animal lovers come together and shut down puppy mills. (And I'm not ashamed to say that I would like to see more regulations to end the intense suffering of factory farmed animals, and all animals who suffer.) 
Again, please pm me if you would like to:heart:


----------



## KAG (Jun 1, 2006)

Puppy Lover, 
Sorry, I don't know your name. Everything you think about Mary is right on. Mary is lovely. A beautiful woman inside and out. 
xoxoxooxoxoxox


And Mary, 
That's no joke. LOL
xoxoxoxooxoxoxo


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

puppy lover said:


> From everything I've seen of you I think you are an awesome breeder and human being. Your integrity shines through here very brightly. I do understand why you became upset with Joy. I hope she is able to let you know if she was or was not directing her comments at you or any other breeders on here. We don't need any more misunderstandings.


I truly appreciate your comments. I'm honestly not here to defend myself or the other breeders on this forum; we know what we do and how we do it and what the end result is and we are proud of what we know and produce. If Joy is trying to damage any one of us she ought to take it private and not use a good forum to that end. What concerns me is that Joy is portraying ALL breeders as unknowing and uncaring. And making extremist statements. I could just ignore her and her comments but if we all do that then the next newbie who reads this thread thinks that Joy's bleak, unkind, inaccurate portrayal of breeders is the truth. And that's not fair to any newbie or any breeder.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

I'm doing a quick post because I've got a lot to do this weekend including starting to work on taxes.


No, I'm not talking about specific show breeder's dogs having health problems. I know there's a lot of good people who show dogs, and probably none of them ever intended to put their dog's health in jeopardy, but problem is that the damage has been done to purebred health by decades of inbreeding, closed registries, popular sire syndrome, etc. Does this mean every purebred dog will have health problems? NO. Does this mean that overall the health of purebred dogs, including show dogs, are a problem. YES. And this is why there is a Purebred Paradox conference. Go back to the first post and carefully read the info. on the HSUS site about the purebred paradox - not the conference page. 

There's LOTS of information online if pet owners want to read about the purebred health problem. If you'll look carefully at the studies, many talk about purebred dogs who are bred for conformation or bred for performance. I don't think this includes puppymill dogs. 

There's been lots of criticism of the Pedigree Dogs Exposed documentary but most people didn't stop to listen or read that a study by Imperial College of London on purebreds was the background for the documentary.

Population Structure and Inbreeding From Pedigree Analysis of Purebred Dogs -- Calboli et al. 179 (1): 593 -- Genetics

After the Pedigree Dogs Exposed documentary, an Independent Inquiry Into Dog Breeding in the UK was done by Sir Patrick Bateson. Sir Patrick Bateson will be a speaker at the HSUS conference. If you don't read the entire report, read at least Chapters 3 and Chapters 6 on inbreeding, especially page 30.

http://breedinginquiry.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/final-dog-inquiry-120110.pdf

Since this report there's been many other research studies done and this is one (Studies are being done internationally, not just US):

Genetic Mapping of Fixed Phenotypes: Disease Frequency as a Breed Characteristic


Going back, here's an older report:

http://www.k9behavioralgenetics.com/pdf/Literature%20PDF/Sutter%202004%20NatRevGen%20canine%20review.pdf


Who is looking at purebred health in the US now?

UC Davis

UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine - Research Units


Cornell

Cornell Chronicle: $10M gift funds canine genomics program


The University of Cambridge has a database which lists purebred inherited diseases and the study reference for each disease. This is the one for maltese.:

Edited: The previous link didn't work. Try this link and select maltese:

http://www.vet.cam.ac.uk/idid/search.php 


Please, please do research for yourself. As I mentioned earlier there's many studies which have been done and are currently being done. There's many studies done on specific breeds and specific diseases. You can find out a lot about studies done at "veterinary universities and colleges" by including these terms in your search.


----------



## Lacie's Mom (Oct 11, 2006)

Joy -- I don't want to say anything mean or unkind, so let me just say that I totally DISAGREE with what you are saying.

I will share my personal knowledge/experience with Lhasa Apsos, just as an example. Lhasas are very long-lived dogs, reaching 18-20 years on average. They are also a very healthy breed with no predominate genetic health issues. As an example, we all know that Maltese are known to have liver stunts, LPs, and other health issues when poorly breed, but Lhasas really have never experienced genetic health problems in any magnitude.

The Lhasa Apso was brought to the Western World and the US with a gift of 2 Lhasas (a male and a female) from the Dalai Lhama in the mid-1930s. The breed was not in the Western World at the time and, hence, this male and female produced litters that had to be "inbreed" to propegate the Breed. Eventually, there were a handful of other Lhasas that came to the US by way of England and a handful more that came via additional gifts from Tibet (less than 10 additional dogs in total). Also there were 7 specific Shih Tzus from China that were breed to existing Lhasas in the late 1930s because, at the time, the US breeders thought that they were the same breed. In fact, there is controversy, even today, about whether or not a Lhasa is "cl" meaning "clear line", i.e., it does not have any of the 7 Shih Tzues within its pedigree. 

As you can see, there was a very small gene pool to pull from when the breed first started here in the US. If you trace a pedigree of any Lhasa far enough back, you will find that 99.9% are from the original foundation male and female given by the Dalai Lhama.

I'm bringing this up because it goes to the heart of what you're trying to disseminate. The Lhasa breed is very healthy and hardy with no true genetic health issues, but, talk about foundation stock that was inbred (at the beginning), the breed is full of it. An yet, breeders have and continue to improve the breed without genetic health issues arising.

Statistics can be skewed in any direction that you want.


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

MaryH said:


> I truly appreciate your comments. I'm honestly not here to defend myself or the other breeders on this forum; we know what we do and how we do it and what the end result is and we are proud of what we know and produce. If Joy is trying to damage any one of us she ought to take it private and not use a good forum to that end. What concerns me is that Joy is portraying ALL breeders as unknowing and uncaring. And making extremist statements. I could just ignore her and her comments but if we all do that then the next newbie who reads this thread thinks that Joy's bleak, unkind, inaccurate portrayal of breeders is the truth. And that's not fair to any newbie or any breeder.



I think the world of Mary as well as the other breeders who post regularly here. Of course, my opinion may not be worth much. :HistericalSmiley:


----------



## godiva goddess (Nov 19, 2007)

Lacie's Mom said:


> Statistics can be skewed in any direction that you want.


so true!


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

Lacie's Mom said:


> Joy -- I don't want to say anything mean or unkind, so let me just say that I totally DISAGREE with what you are saying.
> 
> I will share my personal knowledge/experience with Lhasa Apsos, just as an example. Lhasas are very long-lived dogs, reaching 18-20 years on average. They are also a very healthy breed with no predominate genetic health issues. As an example, we all know that Maltese are known to have liver stunts, LPs, and other health issues when poorly breed, but Lhasas really have never experienced genetic health problems in any magnitude.
> 
> ...


 
Lynn, we're not talking about statistics. We're talking about objective evidence which can be gathered through DNA/genetic research.

I took a couple of minutes to look up heritable diseases of Lhasas and found many . . . sebaceous adenitis, progressive retinal atrophy, keratoconjunctivitis sicca, hip dysplasia, kidney diseases, food allergies, hydrocephalitis. . . .


----------



## Lacie's Mom (Oct 11, 2006)

Just shaking my head!!!


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

:smilie_tischkante: On my way to Costco to buy an extra large supply of Advil. Anyone else want some? :smilie_tischkante:


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

vjw said:


> Lynn, we're not talking about statistics. We're talking about objective evidence which can be gathered through DNA/genetic research.
> 
> I took a couple of minutes to look up heritable diseases of Lhasas and found many . . . sebaceous adenitis, progressive retinal atrophy, keratoconjunctivitis sicca, hip dysplasia, kidney diseases, food allergies, hydrocephalitis. . . .


:beating a dead hors

Ummmm, and have you ever googled heritable diseases in humans? 


:exploding:


----------



## Lacie's Mom (Oct 11, 2006)

MaryH said:


> :smilie_tischkante: On my way to Costco to buy an extra large supply of Advil. Anyone else want some? :smilie_tischkante:


I certainly might need some if I continue to read this thread. :HistericalSmiley::HistericalSmiley::smilie_tischkante::smilie_tischkante:


----------



## beckinwolf (Sep 2, 2008)

My question to Joy is: If purebred dogs are so bad, WHERE is everyone supposed to buy their dogs from? It's almost like you support people NOT breeding dogs at all. I'd much rather support a reputable breeder that is breeding a purebred dog than a BYB or puppymill that is breeding mutts. It just doesn't make sense. 

You even have a purebred dog. Do you regret it? Would you ever buy another purebred? If not, then would you only adopt a shelter dog that was for sure a mutt and not purebred? 

Posting threads against purebred dogs on a purebred dog forum doesn't make sense either. It's like going to a vegan forum and talking only about hunting and slaughtering wild game or something. 

I just hope new people aren't discouraged and end up purposely buying designer breeds from BYB since they are really just mutts and crosses.


----------



## allheart (Oct 3, 2008)

beckinwolf said:


> My question to Joy is: If purebred dogs are so bad, WHERE is everyone supposed to buy their dogs from? It's almost like you support people NOT breeding dogs at all. I'd much rather support a reputable breeder that is breeding a purebred dog than a BYB or puppymill that is breeding mutts. It just doesn't make sense.
> 
> You even have a purebred dog. Do you regret it? Would you ever buy another purebred? If not, then would you only adopt a shelter dog that was for sure a mutt and not purebred?
> 
> ...


Really good points. :aktion033:


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

beckinwolf said:


> My question to Joy is: If purebred dogs are so bad, WHERE is everyone supposed to buy their dogs from? It's almost like you support people NOT breeding dogs at all. I'd much rather support a reputable breeder that is breeding a purebred dog than a BYB or puppymill that is breeding mutts. It just doesn't make sense.
> 
> You even have a purebred dog. Do you regret it? Would you ever buy another purebred? If not, then would you only adopt a shelter dog that was for sure a mutt and not purebred?
> 
> ...


:goodpost:


----------



## allheart (Oct 3, 2008)

MaryH said:


> I truly appreciate your comments. I'm honestly not here to defend myself or the other breeders on this forum; we know what we do and how we do it and what the end result is and we are proud of what we know and produce. If Joy is trying to damage any one of us she ought to take it private and not use a good forum to that end. *What concerns me is that Joy is portraying ALL breeders as unknowing and uncaring. And making extremist statements. I could just ignore her and her comments but if we all do that then the next newbie who reads this thread thinks that Joy's bleak, unkind, inaccurate portrayal of breeders is the truth. And that's not fair to any newbie or any breeder*.


So very true, and those are my concerns as well. I also am so saddened and concerned that Joy has such a strong viewpoint on this and is missing out so much on the good that is out there. By missing out on that, Joy misses out on so much, and anyone else who may think that way, does as well, and that is so sad.



vjw said:


> I'm doing a quick post because I've got a lot to do this weekend including starting to work on taxes.
> 
> 
> No, I'm not talking about specific show breeder's dogs having health problems. I know there's a lot of good people who show dogs, and probably none of them ever intended to put their dog's health in jeopardy, but problem is that the damage has been done to purebred health by decades of inbreeding, closed registries, popular sire syndrome, etc. Does this mean every purebred dog will have health problems? NO. Does this mean that overall the health of purebred dogs, including show dogs, are a problem. YES. And this is why there is a Purebred Paradox conference. Go back to the first post and carefully read the info. on the HSUS site about the purebred paradox - not the conference page.
> ...


 
Joy, I do agree with you how important it is to do research prior to pet ownership and there is alot of great information out there. Here's the thing, these same health concerns are shared as well by ethical breeders, not just today, but the entire time they are breeding, and the entire lines they are breeding. No stone is left unturned. This is why only these ethical breeders should be breeding, and not anyone else, especially pet owners. Ethical breeders know intesive information, which they apply, even more than some vets, good vets, that is shocking. That's why it's so important for a new pet owner of a Maltese, to be sure and have a vet that is aware and specializes in small breeds, that important factor can not be lost either.

I only wish all these dollars being spent to study breeding, would be used what we allready know exsist, and doesn't need a study, and that is Puppymills, that are allowed to continue day after day. They are out there, it is known they are out there, and yet it remains. A tradgedy and if any group loves animals, there is plenty areas they are so desperately needed.

An Ethical breeder, has much on the line, when they place their name behind their dogs. It means something to them and we need to support this group, so that the other groups who need to no longer exsist, don't any longer.

These sorts of studies will never get to the real problem out there. Unknowing, irresponsible, and those who breed for profit, will never be effected by any of this, they will just keep doing what they are doing, and the light is being shined on the wrong group doing the right thing. And who gets hurt? The dogs do, as always. Now, that is not fair.

I'm curious as to what you think about designer breeds? Do you think this trend is good? It's not in my book at all. This poo and that poo, mixed with this poo, and up go the prices for these poor creatures, and their unsuspecting owners and up goes the great health risk, deformaties, tempermant issues, for these precious ones. Who gets hurt by all of this? Once again, as always, the dogs. So sad.


----------



## casa verde maltese (Apr 7, 2007)

So, just to throw this in to the mix. As an adult I've owned 7 dogs (so over the last 20+ years).. of those 7, 6 were pure breeds, 1 was a cross/mutt. The MUTT is the only one that had allergies & other health issues. 

I think as time has gone on.. the more people learn and it is apparent to me (since my dad has bred horses and I've seen that side of breeding) that reputable breeders learn and grow and are striving to make educated decisions. As technology changes.. for the most part we all change, the same goes for breeders. if the breeder has a better way to do things then that's what they do. 

As to the other topic on here the HSUS etc. There are two sides to every argument and it is best to be educated on both sides so the individual can make the best guess. With that said.. NO LARGE agency (private or public or state or federal) is w/out some mismanagement real or imagined or inferred. But the more you know on BOTH sides the more YOU can make your own informed decision. (Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I hope that when making decisions everyone looks at both sides openly and goes from there. 

By supporting reputable breeders who are working to BETTER the breed, we are helping the genetics of Maltese dogs (and whatever breed we purchase). There are definitely dog breeds that have suffered from bad breeding over many years.. but once again people learn and grow and change their practices and things are improving.


----------



## KAG (Jun 1, 2006)

CloudClan said:


> :beating a dead hors
> 
> Ummmm, and have you ever googled heritable diseases in humans?
> 
> ...


This is exactly what I was thinking.
xoxoxoxooxoxoxoxo


----------



## Lacie's Mom (Oct 11, 2006)

vjw said:


> Lynn, we're not talking about statistics. We're talking about objective evidence which can be gathered through DNA/genetic research.
> 
> I took a couple of minutes to look up heritable diseases of Lhasas and found many . . . sebaceous adenitis, progressive retinal atrophy, keratoconjunctivitis sicca, hip dysplasia, kidney diseases, food allergies, hydrocephalitis. . . .


For the record, I wasn't trying to say that Lhasas can't have a heritable disease (any living thing can). My point was that Lhasas aren't PLAGUED by heritable diseases and that they had a very, very, very SMALL gene pool when they began being bred in the US. The diseases that you've mentions can occur in any breed, but aren't seen very often in the Lhasa and certainly aren't predominate.

Reading "stuff" from the internet instead of actually participating in breeding efforts can dangerously lead to false conclusions, imho.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

My next dog will be a mutt.

Yes, we know that purebred dogs are "x" times more likely to have heritable diseases than humans. I've read exactly how many, but can't find the rate right now.

An article by the Department of Biological Sciences at Louisiana States this: 

_The different dog breeds were established within the past few centuries from small numbers of founding individuals. As a consequence, linkage disequilibrium within the genome extends over at least 50-fold greater distances in dogs as compared to humans (__3__). _

Link:

Teaching an old dog new tricks: SINEs of canine genomic diversity


Here's an article from "Briefings in Functional Genomics and Proteomics" titled "Dogs really are man's best friend - Canine genomics has applications in veterinary and human medicine!" Read the second section titled "Why Are Dogs So Unhealthy?"

http://bfg.oxfordjournals.org/content/4/2/112.full.pdf


Here's a brief article from The University of Sydney titled "Flaws on paws - Welfare problems in breeding pedigree dogs" and I've copied and pasted a paragraph from that article:

_Many veterinary geneticists saw the crisis that now faces the Kennel Club looming many years ago. The closed studbook system used by pedigree breeders inevitably involves inbreeding that increases the risk of inherited disorders caused by recessive genes. Such disorders are now recognised in all established breeds of dogs and cats, as well as horses, farm animals and a growing number of captive exotic species. But the problem is worst in dogs, which have been intensively bred within the closed studbook system since Victorian times. Many dogs now have inherited disorders that cause them to suffer so much that it is unkind to keep them alive._


Link:

News | The University of Sydney




Here's an article from the Canadian Veterinary Journal titiled "A new direction for kennel club regulations and breed standards"

A new direction for kennel club regulations and breed standards




*Edited to ADD: I will donate $50 via PayPal to the American Maltese Association Rescue Fund for ONE link to an article in a professional veterinary journal or a veterinary college or university article which proves or demonstrates how show dogs are genetically healthier than mutts. $50 is the limit as that's about all I have since my 11 day hospitalization in December bills have come in.*


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

k9Cracker said:


> H$U$ is NOT an animal welfare group.
> They are an animal rights group.
> BIG difference
> 
> ...


Upon further research into the animal group you support, NAIA, this is what I learned. 

NAIA was founded by Patti Strand, breeder and AKC board member.
NAIA, Patti, and the AKC all support puppy mills.
They lobby against any laws that would ease the suffering of animals in puppy mills, such as The Puppy Protection Act.

NAIA also supports debarking, tail docking, declawing, ear cropping, 
factory farms (without humane regulation), animal testing (without humane regulation), fur farms, circuses and other groups who exploit animals for profit.

As a dog lover, I can't understand why you would support a group that perpetrates the most abhorrent animal abuses in the history of man. 
NAIA is a front group (very much like the one Mary and Pam get their information from, The Center for Consumer Freedom) so the only thing I can think is that you didn't know. 

It is no wonder that this group (and the Center for Consumer Freedom) hates HSUS and distorts the truth about them.
HSUS is successful at passing laws which hurt these animal abusers bottom lines.

Patti Strand - SourceWatch


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

I was/am also vehemently opposed to PPA and PAWS. Does that make me a supporter of puppymills? Not in my mind and at the time these bills were written I had never bred a litter; in fact, I was up to my eyeballs in rescue dogs. *Read the bills. Every breeder and rescue group in the U.S. would have been negatively impacted by this legislation, not just the puppymills.* I am opposed any legislation that would punish all for the sins of a few. It seems to me that you are taking the position that if someone is opposed to legislation that would affect puppymills that they are, in fact, supporters of puppymills. The PAWS bill would have imposed the same licensing, fees, numerical limitations, space limitations, etc. on rescue groups and small hobby breeders as it would have on puppymills. Does it make sense to you that a rescue organization barely scraping together enough money to spay/neuter dogs and cats before placement would be required to pay an annual licensing fee of several hundred dollars? Does it make sense to you that every rescue organization would have to have a defined amount of square footage/dog of kennel space even though most rescue groups don't have kennels but instead keep dogs in foster homes until placement? Please *READ *the bills before passing judgment on those opposed to them.

*I AM NOW OUT OF THIS THREAD FOR GOOD.*


----------



## pammy4501 (Aug 8, 2007)

puppy lover said:


> Upon further research into the animal group you support, NAIA, this is what I learned.
> 
> NAIA was founded by Patti Strand, breeder and AKC board member.
> NAIA, Patti, and the *AKC all support puppy mills.*
> ...


I find that statement extremely hard to believe. I also do not understand why people that seem to have serious issues with pedigree dogs and the breeders and registry of those dogs continues to post on a PEDIGREE DOG forum.


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

pammy4501 said:


> I find that statement extremely hard to believe. I also do not understand why people that seem to have serious issues with pedigree dogs and the breeders and registry of those dogs continues to post on a PEDIGREE DOG forum.


I have no issues with ethical breeders. In fact, I thank God that we have them. I have stated more than once how much I respect the breeders on this forum. 

I have a problem with the AKC because they support puppy mills.
I was hoping that somehow breeders and dog lovers can come together and work on getting humane laws passed for puppy mills. That was one of the reasons I was trying to reach out to Mary. One of my greatest wishes is to see puppy mills go under. 

And I agree, it is hard to believe. But this is what I learned and wanted to share in the hope we can all help animals.

Pam, I forgot to add that it's very easy to be fooled by these groups (NAIA and The Center for Consumer Freedom) since they
are front groups and are very slick at hiding what they really do.


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

AKC is a REGISTRY, not a policing organization. What they do already, especially the CHF, goes above and beyond a registry's purpose.


----------



## pammy4501 (Aug 8, 2007)

puppy lover said:


> I have no issues with ethical breeders. In fact, I thank God that we have them. I have stated more than once how much I respect the breeders on this forum.
> 
> I have a problem with the AKC because they support puppy mills.
> I was hoping that somehow breeders and dog lovers can come together and work on getting humane laws passed for puppy mills. That was one of the reasons I was trying to reach out to Mary. One of my greatest wishes is to see puppy mills go under. I can't be the only one.
> ...


I do not understand why you have a problem with the AKC (a dog registry as JMM says) and no problem with the HSUS! This is a mega organization that poses as an organization to help animals, yet gave less that half of one percent of it's funds towards actually helping ANIMALS!! They are a fund raising organization that takes money from good people that give that money because they love animals! It's shameless. I understand that you do not like my references, and that's fine. But the truth is still the truth no matter who tells it. 
The Rot at the Heart of the Movement : Nathan J Winograd
This is from the founder of "No Kill Nation" and it is quite interesting.


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

puppy lover said:


> I have no issues with ethical breeders. In fact, I thank God that we have them. I have stated more than once how much I respect the breeders on this forum.
> 
> I have a problem with the AKC because they support puppy mills.
> I was hoping that somehow breeders and dog lovers can come together and work on getting humane laws passed for puppy mills. That was one of the reasons I was trying to reach out to Mary. One of my greatest wishes is to see puppy mills go under. I can't be the only one.
> ...


That statement is false, or at the very least it is an interpretation that certainly is not "fact." 

The facts are that AKC has opposed legislation that has been aimed at puppymills, but would impact responsible and ethical breeders. 

Does that then lead to them "supporting" puppy mills? 2 + 2 here does not equal 10. Opposing one thing, does not equal supporting something else. The world is not so black and white as that. 

AKC is a registry. Their primary mission is simply to maintain records. They have taken on an additional role in the political debate about breeding. Sometimes in that role their policy positions may conflict with our individual ideas about ideal breeding practices. However, that does not mean that they _support_ puppy mills.


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

CloudClan said:


> That statement is false, or at the very least it is an interpretation that certainly is not "fact."
> 
> The facts are that AKC has opposed legislation that has been aimed at puppymills, but would impact responsible and ethical breeders.
> 
> ...



What I learned was that the AKC as a group has not supported any humane legislation for puppy mills. And yes, they have opposed legislation that would ease the suffering of animals. To me that is pro puppy mill and pro cruelty - even if it meant good breeders would be impacted. However, I am open. And maybe it would have put breeders out of business. Can you give me an example of legislation that would have impacted ethical breeders?

I learned that the AKC has a vested interest in seeing puppy mills thrive. The AKC makes most of its money from puppy mills (registering dogs). 

Also, Patti Strand, an AKC board member, who started the group NAIA, receives a lot of money from the puppy mill lobby. There are also other AKC board members who serve on NAIA. And NAIA does a lot of pro puppy mill lobbying as well. 

I was only trying to get to the bottom of why some people on here are against HSUS. I'm not saying I have all the answers but I'm trying to learn.
The only vested interest I have is to end the suffering of the animals.

When people put down HSUS they are putting down the possibility of puppy mill reform or shutting down puppy mills for good. If people want puppy mill reform why put down HSUS (not you Cloud Clan) when HSUS is the only one who can shut them down.

I think the reason people put down HSUS is that they believe the lies that they are told by NAIA and The Center for Consumer Freedom. Two groups who represent the corporate interests of puppy mills, factory farms, etc., and don't care about animal suffering, just their bottom line.

What do you think about the AKC's close ties with NAIA - the fact that an AKC board member started the group and now has close financial ties with NAIA. Why isn't anyone addressing that. NAIA perpetrates the most unthinkable acts of cruelty on animals.

Again, this is something I'm learning about. I don't have all the answers. But I'm trying, for the sake of the animals.


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

CloudClan, I also learned that NAIA and The Center for Consumer Freedom are scaring breeders into thinking that stricter puppy mill laws will put them out of business. That's related to the slippery slope that the Center for Consumer Freedom, HumaneWatch and NAIA constantly preys on:
"If HSUS gets a foot in the door with this puppy mill legislation, they're one step closer to confiscating your pets and forcing you to eat tofu".

The HSUS is not against responsible breeders. It's true that they encourage people to get shelter animals first and if they want to get a purebred they advise to go to a reputable breeder. But can you really blame HSUS for encouraging people to get a shelter pet when the shelters are busting at the seams?

What I envision is that breeders and the HSUS can work together somehow. (Please see the link I posted for Mary about HSUS and breeders.) Something must be done about puppy mills.

Please do not believe the lies of these corporate organizations.


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

I apologize, it's too late to edit.

Patti Strand, AKC board member and founder of NAIA, has made her perspective on animal welfare clear.
She promotes the AKC's profits at the expense of shelters, rescues, local and national welfare groups.

Patti Strand - SourceWatch

In this letter Patti attacks shelters as competition to breeders, and continues to push the myth that shelters regularly import animals from overseas for profit.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdf/Washington


----------



## k9Cracker (Feb 22, 2006)

puppy lover said:


> Upon further research into the animal group you support, NAIA, this is what I learned.
> 
> NAIA was founded by Patti Strand, breeder and AKC board member.
> NAIA, Patti, and the AKC all support puppy mills.
> ...


I think AKC does a stand up job. So does Patti Strand.

The things on that list I agree with: 
I think if debarking is the difference between a dog keeping its home, then it should be done. I wouldn't, but it should be an option.
I don't have a problem at all with tail docking and ear cropping,and plan on cropping/docking my future Dobe. If we can remove reproductive organs for convenience, we can crop and dock. 
I also LOVE going to the circus. Did you know that Ringling Bros Elephant Conservation Program is one of the only ones in the WORLD where the Asian Elephants are breeding on their own? 

I think we just have different values and will have to agree to disagree. :/


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

pammy4501 said:


> I do not understand why you have a problem with the AKC (a dog registry as JMM says) and no problem with the HSUS! This is a mega organization that poses as an organization to help animals, yet gave less that half of one percent of it's funds towards actually helping ANIMALS!! They are a fund raising organization that takes money from good people that give that money because they love animals! It's shameless. I understand that you do not like my references, and that's fine. But the truth is still the truth no matter who tells it.
> The Rot at the Heart of the Movement : Nathan J Winograd
> This is from the founder of "No Kill Nation" and it is quite interesting.


Yes the AKC is supposed to be a resgistry but they are much more. I have a problem with the AKC because they are pro-puppy mill and go against any legislation for the humane treatment of puppy mill animals. As I've stated, AKC has close ties with NAIA - a lobbying organization that is pro-puppy mill and also against passing laws for the humane treatment of factory farmed animals, animals in labs, circuses, etc.

As for Winograd, he hates HSUS, the ASPCA and every other organization that doesn't support his agenda. Winograd criticizes HSUS for not funding shelters - even though this is not HSUS's mission.

He also promotes the myth that there is no pet overpopulation problem and that the problem is from overseas animals. 

He's unrelentingly hostile to anyone who doesn't subscribe to his unproven and unsubstantiated theories, which has caused huge divides and infighting in the animal welfare movement. No-kill is hugely controversial. 

HSUS works to stop cruelty to all animals (not just dogs and cats). And it addresses the root cause of the shelter overpopulation rather than simply mopping up the damage done by abusers (puppy mills).


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

MaryH said:


> I was/am also vehemently opposed to PPA and PAWS. Does that make me a supporter of puppymills? Not in my mind and at the time these bills were written I had never bred a litter; in fact, I was up to my eyeballs in rescue dogs. *Read the bills. Every breeder and rescue group in the U.S. would have been negatively impacted by this legislation, not just the puppymills.* I am opposed any legislation that would punish all for the sins of a few. It seems to me that you are taking the position that if someone is opposed to legislation that would affect puppymills that they are, in fact, supporters of puppymills. The PAWS bill would have imposed the same licensing, fees, numerical limitations, space limitations, etc. on rescue groups and small hobby breeders as it would have on puppymills. Does it make sense to you that a rescue organization barely scraping together enough money to spay/neuter dogs and cats before placement would be required to pay an annual licensing fee of several hundred dollars? Does it make sense to you that every rescue organization would have to have a defined amount of square footage/dog of kennel space even though most rescue groups don't have kennels but instead keep dogs in foster homes until placement? Please *READ *the bills before passing judgment on those opposed to them.
> 
> *I AM NOW OUT OF THIS THREAD FOR GOOD.*


Mary, I am sorry you left the thread. I am here to learn as well. I understand why you did not want to vote for that bill. 
However I do not believe that every bill for the humane treatment of puppy mill animals would impact rescue groups. This is only one bill. 

Just because you may be against humane legislation does not make you a puppy mill supporter. I understand that it could impact you as a breeder. I was saying that I believe the AKC as a group are pro-puppy mill.

Throughout this thread I was trying to explain to you that your statements about HSUS were from unreliable sources. The Center for Consumer Freedom is hired by agribusiness, puppy mills, etc to lobby against HSUS. They are doing an all out smear campaign of half-truths, distortions and lies against HSUS.

I do not think it is fair to use these groups as your source of information about HSUS. I believe the distortions and lies created by these front groups only serve to undermine the work that HSUS does to shut down puppy mills and stop the suffering of all animals.


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

Puppylover, 

I appreciate your passion. But to me this debate feels like something between two political parties. Both sides are so entrenched as to not truly hear the concerns of the other side. 

The reality is that people who belong to animal rights groups around the country do advocate the removal of all purebred dogs and breeders who breed them from the equation. Here is an example of the kinds of posters that some of those folks bring to dog shows. This particular one was sponsored by Peta and shown at Crufts: 










Joy has stated on more than one occasion that she believes that all purebred dog breeders are doing harm. She rejects time and again that there may be any out there who might actually be doing something positive. 

I understand your passion against puppymills. I am equally passionate. I have been involved in rescue long before I ever got involved in showing dogs. In fact, it was my work with rescue dogs that led me to my first ever dog show. I went to participate in the rescue parade. That was 10 years ago. I have fostered and adopted dogs who have been in mills/byb and just purely horrifically abused. Frankly, when I began my work in rescue I was not sure I understood ethical breeders and their role in the equation. But I do understand them now. And yes ethical breeders are highly supportive of rescue. Most of them recommend rescue to anyone who is ready to consider that. I believe all ethical breeders would share your passion. They would not however, support HSUS efforts. 

You asked for examples of legislation that would damage ethical breeders, frankly there are so many different bills in different legislatures across the country that it would be difficult to catalog here. But in general terms, as just one example, HSUS supports mandatory Spay & Neuter bills across the country. Many of these bills would impose stiff fees for intact animals and even stiffer penalties on breeders who are found to be out of compliance (i.e. do not get all their paperwork and fees in to the local officials). 

I know from my own experience that the propaganda machine of some of these AR groups has increased the distrust of ANYONE who calls themselves a breeder or even buys their dogs from a breeder. In the dog world there seem to be two camps. Those who support ethical show breeders and those who don't. In looking for places to go to a vet, or even dog school classes I have found that I have to navigate to find places where my "intact" dogs are accepted. (I have had vets and instructors ask me more than once when I was going to get my CH dog fixed). 

You say the AKC is supportive of puppymills. This is a common accusation and one that I don't know if you will ever see the other side of. However, I will again disagree. 

AKC is a registry. That is their primary role. They are not made up of individual members, but local member kennel clubs. Most of those kennel clubs are made up of dog lovers. Most of them have codes of ethics that decry puppymill type breeding operations. Those people involved in those dog clubs are more active in rescue than the average "member" of HSUS. 

AKC does the following things: 


It keeps pedigree records. 
It keeps breeding records. 
It keeps records for dogs in competition.
may include conformation, obedience, agility, tracking, herding.​
Sponsors Responsible Pet Ownership through CGC and Star Puppy Programs
Supports Research Efforts into Canine Health 
Promotes Responsible breeding practices through education and programs like the Breeder of Merit program. 
Inspects Breeders for compliance with AKC rules. Including DNA testing. The inclusion of DNA testing and inspection requirements was a major reason that many puppymills changed to alternative registries about 10 years ago. 
Have a voice in the legal issues that affect breeders. 

The last one is the most controversial and is where you see many folks so angered. However you asked for specifics and here are a couple of examples. AKC opposed legislation in Mississippi because it was poorly written and overly broad. 
American Kennel Club - Two Overly-Broad Animal Cruelty Bills Advance to Mississippi Senate
This bill would have made it mandatory to spay or neuter and owners dog if it were taken by any animal welfare agency. Now, in a world were the presumption of guilt is automatic this may seem fair, but there was no provision for anyone who might have been innocent of the charges. Their dogs would have been spayed and neutered as well. 

Here is an alternative example of a bill AKC supported that was written to combat PuppyMills: 
American Kennel Club - Wyoming Passes Positive Animal Cruelty Bill

I do not support every position taken by the AKC. For instance, I hate ear cropping. I think breeds like the Doberman look much better with drop ears. However, I believe the AKC has done a lot of positive things over the years and I am grateful for the majority of their efforts. They answer to their member clubs, like AMA. Ultimately, those of us who belong to those member clubs are their voice. Not any individual board member we may or may not agree with at any given moment.


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

CloudClan said:


> Puppylover,
> 
> I appreciate your passion. But to me this debate feels like something between two political parties. Both sides are so entrenched as to not truly hear the concerns of the other side.
> 
> ...


CloudClan,
Thank you for taking the time to explain things so beautifully.
I apologize, I did not make myself clear. I did not mean to say that the entire AKC were pro puppy mill. I was referring to Patti Strand and the several other board members who are influential in legislation (of the AKA as a group) through NAIA. I imagine most of the people involved in the AKA are decent dog loving people who are not for puppy mills!
I would like to respond further but I have family obligations and will respond when I have more time.
Yes, so true, nothing is black and white!


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

puppy lover said:


> Mary, I am sorry you left the thread. I am here to learn as well. I understand why you did not want to vote for that bill.
> However I do not believe that every bill for the humane treatment of puppy mill animals would impact rescue groups. This is only one bill.
> 
> *Just because you may be against humane legislation does not make you a puppy mill supporter.* I understand that it could impact you as a breeder. I was saying that I believe the AKC as a group are pro-puppy mill.
> ...


I had every intention of being out of this thread until someone brought this post to my attention.

Puppy Lover, see your statement above bolded in red and listen to me once and for all. Do not EVER imply that I am opposed to humane legislation or the humane treatment of all of God's creatures. I am opposed to legislation that punishes the masses for the few. I am opposed to propoganda. I am opposed to people claiming that their position is the only correct position and all other's with a different position are wrong ... especially when the person making that judgment hasn't even taken the time to read the legislation but instead reads a pile of propoganda!

Enough now! Please leave me out of your future posts on this subject.


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

CloudClan said:


> Puppylover,
> 
> I appreciate your passion. But to me this debate feels like something between two political parties. Both sides are so entrenched as to not truly hear the concerns of the other side.
> 
> ...


CloudClan, thank you for helping understand things from your eyes. I was so upset with all that I learned about NAIA and Patti Strand I couldn't hear you (or Mary) in your other post.

I do get the AKC is not pro puppy mill but that their lobbying, etc helps pass bills that happen to benefit puppy mills. When I said they were pro puppy mill I was referring to the end result. But yes, there is a big difference when I thought about it so I apologize. Thank you for explaining the AKC and the role that it plays. That was good to know.

I looked at the links and understand what you are talking about. Yes things can get vague as legislators try to please everyone and end up with something not workable. There are no simple answers here. Nothing is black and white as you say.

Yes, I can now understand your feelings about HSUS and PETA. It is sad that PETA is focusing on this. I don't understand. I can say for sure that HSUS is not against breeders, although I now realize that their efforts can hurt you. I had no idea what you have gone through regarding your breeding with animal rights groups and others. It was painful and hurt me to hear it and I am truly sorry that you have to go through this. And I imagine other breeders have also experienced this in one form or another.

I respect ethical show breeders and all the breeders on here after getting to know them for their work, commitment and what they bring to the world. 
I am blessed every day because of Bonnie Palmer.

I don't understand why small hobby/ethical breeders are lumped together with puppy mills. To me that is wrong because it causes so many problems.
I'm wondering if something can be done? 

Thank you CloudClan for all your rescue work. Thank you for your consideration and kindness and explaining things in a way I could understand.:heart:

(I see Mary has posted but I'm afraid to look as she was not happy with me in her last post. Mary if you are reading this I will read your post if I can muster up the courage another time. Right now I'm exhausted from everything I've learned and gone through for the past few days.)


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

Mary, I was not implying in any way that you are against God's creatures. I don't even think the people in the AKC (board/execs) think puppy mills are ok.
Why would I think any ethical breeder would?

I believe the reason the AKC opposes Prop B is that they oppose any attempts to regulate breeders or that might impact the $32 million they rake in on registrations.

Here is an article about 3 breeders who are working together to support Prop B.
They say, "The AKC says they are looking out for small breeder's interests but legislation against a kennel is certainly not a threat to me as a breeder and owner."
Fake AKC Registration For Puppy Mill Dogs In Missouri Prop B | Global Animal

Yes, I do believe that the AKC is pro-puppy mill. They have a vested interest in ensuring that as many animals as possible are bred and registered with their service. That is the reason they tried to form a business deal with the Hunte Corp (the largest producer of puppy mill dogs) and Petland. They had to back out of the deal due to public outcry, including from their own membership. 

It's true I'm not an expert on reading bills but I can read the writing on the wall.

Again I was hoping to somehow bring breeders together to improve the situation. I still think that can happen, especially when I read articles like the one I posted here. 

I found most of what I shared on the AKC and the unsavory groups they are affiliated with from SourceWatch.

I got my information about The Center for Consumer Freedom from their website as well.
Center for Consumer Freedom - SourceWatch
I also watched the piece about them on 60 minutes.
Meet Dr. Evil - 60 Minutes - CBS News

I apologize if I caused any bad feelings, that was not my intention.
I believe in the goodness and integrity of all the breeders on this forum.


----------

