friendly, larger print version
Heart of Darkness
A Sad Day for Puppies
You beasts! But I'm not beaten yet. You've won the battle, but I'm about to
win the wardrobe. My spotty puppy coat is in plain site and leaving tracks.
by Lisa G. Leming
The Puppy Protection Act was inspired by special interest groups that fundraise
using emotional animal welfare issues."
As such, it was based on sound bites and depended on evidence from those who aim
to restrict all dog breeding... NAIA supports the AKC's conclusion that there is
no basis in current science and no consensus among breeders, veterinarians or
animal behaviorists as to what constitutes acceptable "socialization
standards." Patti Strand
jubilantly describes the defeat of the PPA
on April 26, 2002. Thanks in large measure to the selfless efforts of Patti
Strand of the
National Animal Interest Alliance
American Kennel Club;
Puppy Protection Act was defeated in 2002.
A tragic day for puppies
but apparently a reason to celebrate for Patti (hooray!) "The
NAIA supports the AKC's conclusion."
(?) How convenient, Ms. Strand has been on the board of one organization (AKC)
since 1995 and is the National Director, co-founder and primary spokesperson for
the other (NAIA). She dismisses humane legislation as "extremism" while
ignoring a wealth of information on this subject. In 2001, Senators Rick
Santorum (R-PA) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced this amendment which would
have created a "three strikes and you're out" system, limited the number of
litters in a 24 month period and mandated a one year minimum age for breeding.
It also would have required socialization periods with other dogs and people for
their well being and to prevent behavioral issues. The House-passed version of
the Farm bill, H.R. 2646,
does not contain the puppy mill provision."
Opposition to this bill did not include welfare and advocacy groups which
"promote animal well-being" but the commercial animal industries, including
breeder and industry lobbies like the AKC, the NAIA and the
American Veterinary Medical Association.
There are a percentage of veterinarians profiting through pet stores for filling
out (often fabricated) "health certificates" required in some states. They may
also receive referrals from pet stores who send customers with sick puppies to
them. They don't work for breeders; which would cut into profits and who let
animals go untreated (even performing gruesome surgeries like C sections
themselves, often without anesthesia). Almost all pet breeder associations link
to the NAIA and the AKC websites. Commercial breeders are often puppy mills
that mass produce dogs which are sold in pet stores or on-line. There are
reportedly 4,000 to 5,000 puppy mills in the U.S., each with 75 to 150 breeding
dogs. Female dogs used for breeding in puppy mills are bred until their bodies
give out. Dogs are often "stored" in cramped, usually filthy, dark cages with
little care, socialization or human companionship. Dogs in puppy mills have
been found starved and/or covered with fleas and tics. The AKC licenses the
litters of puppy mills as these are the registry's largest source of income. In
2006 the AKC registered 870,000 individual dogs and 416,000 litters. At $20 per
dog and $25 per litter (plus $2 per puppy) the
AKC brought in well over $30 million
in revenues from registration of dogs born in puppy mills.
February 2008 letter
from Patti Strand strenuously objects to a Washington State Consumer Protection
Bill proposing that commercial breeders be held legally accountable for the
health of puppies they sell. In a shocking display of malice, pettiness and
greed; she argues the unfairness of holding commercial breeders to health
standards while exempting charitable rescues. She writes; "These
entities are totally unregulated today, despite the fact that many of them
operate like pet stores, using all the modern business methods of advertising
and marketing to recruit and sell/adopt a huge number of pets in the burgeoning
secondary pet market. Complaints about sick, dying and vicious animals placed
through these channels have increased tremendously in recent years as these new
rescues and other quasi-humane groups have mushroomed."
Incredibly, she seems unable to make a distinction between commercial breeders
selling sick puppies for hundreds or thousands of dollars each and charities
rescuing sometimes older, neglected and abused. In reality, even healthy
puppies are euthanized due to pet overpopulation. Most physical and temperament
issues are due to
inbreeding, inhumane treatment or lack of proper socialization.
While animals from rescues are temperament tested before being adopted out
(sometimes with restrictions); most issues (including over-population) are
preventable and result from the very lack of mandatory standards which the NAIA
endorses. Some are rescues from puppy mills whose lack of standards and
"professional breeders" she has spent 20 years defending. Rescues are neither
"quasi-humane groups" nor used cars lots as in "secondary pet markets." (She
even brings up a "lemon law".) She adds "on
a philosophical level, we disagree with any approach that treats animals the
same as manufactured products..."
This is presumably for effect given the entire premise of the NAIA is that
animals are commodities. She also objects to "strays
being imported from Asia..."
where dogs and cats are often victims of the fur trade and other atrocities.
To quote Patti Strand
also notes that campaigns to stop pet overpopulation have been so successful
they have caused a shortage of puppies and small dogs in many shelters. Rather
than declare success and close their doors, some of these shelters now pay for
puppies and dogs and import them from other cities, territories and countries so
they will have dogs available for adoption." She adds; "NAIA believes some of
the rescue groups and shelters participating in this relocation process are
acting as dealers and pet stores and should be licensed accordingly."
Approximately 9.6 million companion animals are
euthanized annually in the US.
Humane societies sometimes take in overflow from states and counties with very
overcrowded shelters and high euthanasia who would otherwise by put down.
However, they do not buy and sell dogs nor are they "dealers". Obviously, the
real issue is not so much a "lack of standards" or "quasi-humane groups"; but
competition with profitable and AKC registered pure bred puppies from mills.
The Hijacking of the Humane Movement: Animal Extremism
(1993, out of print) by Patti & Rod Strand, review
by Norma Bennett Woolfe (NAIA Editor Emeritus).
"...dog breeders and other "users" of animals are being squeezed between the
pet-owning, animal-loving average citizen and a growing cadre of radicals who
want to sever all use of animals... John Q. Public donates money to "end animal
suffering" in abusive labs, so-called factory farms, sub-standard zoos and
circuses, puppy mills, etc. The radicals take that money and use it to promote
their own agenda-the end of meat-eating, zoos, circuses, medical research
involving animals, even the keeping of assistance dogs and all other pets."
Animal welfare advocates support spay/neuter,
breeding restrictions and often vegetarianism for health, ethical, spiritual or
environmental reasons. Many animal rights advocates own pets, rescue, volunteer
or have worked in animal welfare. There is currently no group that targets
"keeping of assistance dogs and all other pets". Politicians pocket large sums
from vivisection lobbies and pharmaceuticals require scapegoats for their
constantly rotating (off the market after tragic human consequences) arsenal of
In 2002, the combined profits ($35.9 billion) of the ten largest drug
companies in the Fortune 500 were more than the combined profits ($33.7 billion)
of the remaining 490 companies together. The only reason these drug companies
did not maintain this shocking financial advantage is that the oil companies'
profits have increased considerably with the Iraq War, thus raising the 490
profits slightly higher.
"Then, in the mid 20th Century, the activists
resurfaced in Nazi uniforms and approved a spate of laws designed to protect
animals. Hitler proclaimed himself a vegetarian, and so-called crimes against
animals were often penalized by death while crimes against people went
unpunished. The stage had been set for the reemergence of the radical animal
rights movement, which began in earnest in the 1960s. Animal rights groups
range from the terrorist through the treacherous to the tricky and advocate
everything from elimination of medical research involving animals to the keeping
of pets. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) raids and vandalizes research
laboratories and fur farms and terrorizes scientists; PETA is a mouthpiece for
ALF and promotes civil disobedience, harassment, trickery, and lies to end the
use of animals; and the Humane Society of the US (HSUS) proposes draconian
breeding bans on dogs and cats and lobbies for an end to hunting."
"Vandalized" laboratories full of "terrorized
scientists" are often notorious laboratories such as Huntingdon Life Sciences.
"Large companies like Huntingdon get away with appalling violations of animal
welfare. Whether in the name of science or product testing, they hide behind the
fallacies that animal experimentation is necessary and in the best interest of
the public. The experimentation associated with Sucralose (Splenda) provides a
charming example. Between companies testing Splenda, including Huntingdon, an
estimated 13,000 animals, including rodents, beagles and monkeys, were killed
testing a substance roughly 600 times sweeter than ordinary sugar. With a
surfeit of artificial sweetners already available to the public, Splenda is
nothing but another link in a chain of questionably safe substitutes. After a
slew of harsh and unnecessary killings, the world received another food additive
didn't know it needed.
Robert Payne, considered to be Hitler's definitive biographer states, "His
asceticism was fiction invented by Goebbels (Nazi Minister of Propaganda) to
emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated
him from other men." Micheal Krater, author of 'Doctors Under Hitler', states
that "As soon as animal vivisection became standard practice, the question arose
about experimental research on human beings... for there is no assurance from
animal research itself that a given drug would be valid for human application. A
famous example is the fact that aspirin kills rabbits... The evolution from
animal experimentation to human experimentation is a logical consequence...
whether in Nazi Germany, or elsewhere and not the result of preferring humans to
animals. "...the often-encountered theory that Nazis spurned human life in
preference for that of animals, in particular house pets, is without basis in
fact--nonsuspect societies love pets also." 'Human
Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After'
from 'Strangers At The Bedside' by David Rothman. Ms. Woolf's myopic and
paranoid visions of "draconian breeding bans", "trickery", "terrorized
scientists" and warm hearted support of hunters have little in common with
animal welfare. Patti Strand and the NAIA maintain an absurd denial of pet
overpopulation, to the point of vilifying spay/neuter advocates and proposing
that rescues and shelters be licensed as "dealers".
"The humane movement began in England in the early 19th Century when moralists,
political philosophers, and members of several religions joined forces to force
laws prohibiting cruelty to animals and children. They established the Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the National Anti-Vivisection
Society to bring about the end of blood sports (bear and bull baiting and cock
and dog fighting) and a number of other cruel practices and to stop the use of
animals in medical research. This latter goal was shared by the Luddites, a
group of anti-science zealots, and Victorian activists, who were sure that
people "deserved" the diseases they contracted and therefore didn't "deserve" to
be cured. Remnants of both philosophies are rampant in today's animal rights
Ms. Strand makes predictably absurd and baseless connections between the
Anti-Vivisection Society and "a group of anti-science zealots, and Victorian
activists, who were sure that people "deserved" the diseases they contracted and
therefore didn't "deserve" to be cured." Scientists and physicians; both past
and present, have always opposed vivisection as
unscientific, cruel and dangerous.
rifles, bows, arrows, whips, air guns, electric prods, knives, razor blades
steel leg traps
pretend to be appalled by
(!) It is amusing hear shills rave about PETA's
and or the
targeting of defenseless corporations.
The entire annual operating budget for the
largest animal rights organization in the world
is 35 million (almost exclusively from membership dues.) The
American Kennel Club
collects a similar amount selling "registries" for dogs from puppy mills and
1.5 billion a year
Many vivisectors still claim that what they do helps save human lives. They are
lying. The truth is that animal experiments kill people and animal researchers
are responsible for the deaths of thousands of men, women and children every
year. Dr. Vernon Coleman, Royal Society of Medicine (N.Y. Times Editorial)
Doctors who speak out in favour of experimentation do not deserve any
recognition in society, all the more so since their brutality is apparent not
only during such experiments, but also in their practical medical lives. They
are mostly men who stop at nothing in order to satisfy their ruthless and
unfeeling lust for honours and gain. Dr. Med. Hugo Knecht (1909)
Voice for Ethical Research at Oxford
1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection
by Hans Ruesch
Researchers from Harvard and Boston Universities concluded that medical measures
(drugs and vaccines) accounted for
between 1 and 3.5 % of the total decline in mortality rate since 1900.
Scores of animals were killed in the quest to find cures for tuberculosis,
scarlet fever, small pox and diphtheria. Dr. Edward Kass of Harvard Medical
School, asserts that the primary credit for the virtual eradication of these
diseases must go to improvements in public health, sanitation and general
standard of living. Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in
animals. 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as
useless or dangerous to humans. At least 50 drugs on the market cause
cancer in laboratory animals.