But Dinosaurs are....EXTINCT!

The world never ceases to amaze me.  There are so many crazy, wonderful, fascinating things that happen daily.  New species, and behaviors being discovered, we learn more about our universe, and solar system every day. Existing species continue to evolve, sometimes unexpectedly.  I'm always excited to read about these things.  And then there are things that take my breath away for how... well lets be blunt, stupid, they are.  I mean head-scratching, do you live under a rock, did you graduate top of your class at First Neanderthal Community college...ignorant.  This is a prime example.

Jay Branscomb, a comedian and personality known for "stirring the pot" if you know what I mean, posted a photograph on Facebook of Steven Spielberg posing with an animatronic Triceratops from the 1993 move Jurassic Park.  Along with that photo, he also posted the comment, "Disgraceful photo of recreational hunter happily posing next to a Triceratops he just slaughtered.  Please share so the world can name and shame this despicable man."  Jay Branscomb, was trolling.

For those of you not up on your internet lingo, "trolling" is defined by Dictionary.com as:
Digital Technology, Informal.

1. to post inflammatory or inappropriate messages or comments on (the Internet, especially a message board) for the purpose of upsetting other users and provoking a response.
2. to upset or provoke (other users) by posting such messages or comments.

The key words here are "to provoke a response", which is what Jay Branscomb did.  But I don't think that anyone was prepared for the responses that he got.  The post circulated Facebook gathering comments such as “Disgraceful. No wonder dinosaurs became extinct. Sickos like this kill every last one of them as soon as they are discovered. He should be in prison.”  Okay fair enough, at least this person seems to think that this animal had perhaps been in hiding in the deep Amazon rain forest for millions of years, and just walked into a clearing at the wrong time.  I'll give them that.  Then there are comments like these, “I don’t care who he is, he should not have shot that animal.” and  "One day we will realize that we are killing all animals on this planet and we need them to survive. But, when we realize it will be too late."  And more...
"That's why they are on the endangered list."
"Isn't that an endangered species?!? Horrible!!!"
"Steven Spielberg has absolutely no respect for animals. Posing in front of this poor dead animal like that. Barbaric."  You get the point.

It's hard not to laugh at some of these replies.  After all anyone who has a local library, attended any degree of public school, or has had a television in the last 50 years should know what this animal is (even if they've never seen the movie Jurassic Park), and that it doesn't look anything like a modern....well anything.  It has a frill, two large spikes on it's head, and a beak.  It's not a mammal, and it's not a large reptile either.  It's something different.  Therein lies the trouble, and the source of my unease.  Even when other posters pointed out that this was director Steven Spielberg (a well known director they should have at least heard of), and that he directed a movie about dinosaurs, posters ignored those facts and kept yelling about anti-hunting, animal abuse, and prison terms. 

If this doesn't scare you it should.  Why?  Because either the majority of people who responded to this post have perfected their trolling to near master-craft level, or... people who consider themselves a "voice for the animals" care absolutely nothing about facts, want nothing but the harshest punishment for anyone whose beliefs don't align with their own, and are only vaguely aware of what an animal is.  The fact that they couldn't look at this photo and tell it's not a modern mammal means they lack, what I would consider, rudimentary knowledge of our modern world.  What 3 year old can't be shown this photo, and proclaim proudly and with conviction, "DINOSAUR!"?

I grew up watching TV shows like Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, Wild, Wild World of Animals, and Disney's Real-Life Adventures (which sadly turned out not to be so "real" after all).  I took Ranger Rick magazine, and had a huge collection of Zoobooks (yes they even had one on Dinosaurs).  I even had a collection of cards, that came 20 at a time, each with a full color photo of an animal, and the back told about it's location, habitat, common and scientific name, and so on.  It's the reason why I know what a Cus-cus is and most people don't.  Okay, you got me, I'm an animal nerd!  And I concede that I know way more about animals that the average American.

I love animals.  I've made it my life to study them (mostly dogs and horses), and I care about their well being.  I can read dogs as easily as if they could talk, because I know how they communicate.  I can ball-park my chicken's vocalizations to within reason, and I've only had them about two years.  I can tell when they say "don't bother me", "Ooooo what have you got there?", "INCOMING HAWK!", "or, someone's in my favorite nest box and I need to lay an egg NOW!".  That last one always tickles me, because there are 5 empty next boxes, and they would rather wait in line and scream chicken-obscenities at their flock mate, then take the next box over.  But then again, chickens are related to Dinosaurs, which brings us back on topic (see how I did that :)  ). 

You would think that someone that loved animals so much, and cared about their welfare SO MUCH, would have more than a passing knowledge about animals, both alive and reasonably the most famous of those who are dead or extinct, undoubtedly of which the Triceratops is one.  You would think that they would be interested in the facts of the matter, before leaping to such condemning conclusions.  You would also think, they would be open to suggestions that the image might not be quite what it seems (I saw it on the Internet, it MUST be true!).  But they don't and they aren't. They can't hear what others are saying over the sound of their own self righteous screaming, and they can't see what others point out because their eyes are closed for emphasis.  And while this still may be chuckle-worthy because it's a picture of an animatronic dinosaur that was used as a movie prop, it stops being funny at all when you realize that they do the same thing to real people, and real animals, that have real lives and incur real litigation, fines and punishments.  Two recent examples come to mind.

First was a short cell phone video taken of two dogs howling in the snow.  Now if you aren't part of the "live under a rock club" you probably know that a large portion of the U.S. this year got unexpected and sometimes abnormal amounts of snow.  Both dogs in question were arctic breeds and appeared to be Husky or Malamute mixes, and had copious amounts of coat.  The video was (I can only assume, purposely) taken from an angle that showed the front of their pen but not the back, and by omission made it look like the dogs had no shelter, no food, and no water.  Couple that with some mournful howling (either out of boredom, or the need to communicate a la 101 Dalmations, as there are other neighborhood dogs howling along in the video) and you have something that looks like an abusive situation.  There was also a flattened cardboard box near the fence outside the pen, that more than one person accused of being a dead dog that had just been "discarded".  The video went viral, authorities were called, and the family got lots of threats from "animal lovers" about the blatant mistreatment of their dogs.  Death threats, arson threats, and an online petition to have the dogs removed, as well as calls from MULTIPLE states to the local authorities.  I can only imagine that either the neighbor who shot the video disapproved of the dogs being kept outdoors at all, or that they were tired of the noise and tried to do something sensational to have the dogs removed from the adjoining property.  Either way, it was a jerk move to say the least.  The dogs had ample food and water, heat lamps and straw.  (Authorities found no fault with their standard of care, except they felt one dog house was a little small for one dog, and the family replaced it immediately.) 

The second was this week.  A small scale New York farmer was charged with I believe 12 counts of animal cruelty and had his dogs and horses removed from the farm because of a "report" authorities received.  The officials showed up so early at his house that he had yet to get his morning farm chores done.  In good faith, he showed them around the property, where they made pages and pages of notes.  What stuck was even though the weather was well below freezing, and heaters were employed to keep the water tanks from freezing, one had frozen over.  Not frozen solid, but frozen over.   So his horses and dogs were removed from the property, and charges were filed.  This in spite of  two separate veterinarians who came and inspected all the animals, and despite the hard winter they had just endured, found none to be injured or in poor health.  All of this farmers animals were free range, and his cattle were grazed in a method called "Management Intensive Grazing", whereby they spend one day in a single pasture, and are moved to another pasture the next day.  It is 21 days before cows are allowed in the same pasture again, which means the grass is diversified, never over grazed, clean, fresh, parasite free and more nutritious.  Why would you go to the expense to have 22 separate grazing areas (that means more work moving cows daily, and more fencing that has to be in place) if you didn't give a flying fescue if your animals had plenty of water daily?  To me, it just doesn't add up.

I'll admit, some days I look over and the water bowl is empty *gasp* but I don't pack up 8 dogs and run them to the vet to have them treated for dehydration.  Some nights, their dinner may be an hour late (sorry guys!) but I don't immediately run weigh them all, and add more kibble to compensate for the hour of calories they've burned.  Sometimes my dogs bark or howl, but it's not because they are being tortured or having their toenails ripped out (though if you asked a couple of them they would lie and tell you that happens from time to time too!).  Nobody is perfect.  On hot days, I check the chicken water about 3 times a day.  On days when temps are below freezing, sometimes I have to carry water out 3 or more times a day.  Does that mean they may go a half hour to an hour without access to non frozen water? Yep, it sure does.  Does that mean they are being mistreated, neglected, or they are going to dehydrate to death? Not likely as my chickens would rather be running around foraging than hanging out at the water cooler, discussing last nights episode of CSI: Chicken Scratch Investigation. 

My point is this; that there are a lot of people in the world out there who claim to love and want to protect animals, without having a clue as to what is really good for them.  They don't know about their behaviors, that thinning numbers of select animals can actually spare the majority from lingering starvation or disease, that freeing captive animals is many times a death sentence, or that when a wolf gets kicked in the face by a Caribou and it's jaw is broken, that NOBODY TAKES IT TO THE VET.  Nature is not kind.  Why then would some people want them all to be "free"?  Because they don't know (or don't want to admit) that animals starve to death in the wild.  Food and resources have to be fought over, there's no feed truck that just drives down the road and throws out laboratory crafted vegan pseudo meat to meet the nutritional needs of all the animals that eat it.  Being a wild animal means you are on your own, you may suffer injury and pain, you may die of infection, or you may be eaten alive by something bigger or stronger than you, or you may have to eat others to survive. You may starve to death, or die of dehydration during rough times, you may die during birth and leave offspring to die or be eaten because they have no protection.  When you reach sexual maturity, you may be run off by your pack or family and forced to live in isolation for a time, you may be injured, sometimes fatally so, as you try to stake out your territory, or defend your mates from intruders, or you may be pair bonded and one of you die, and you may leave behind a grief stricken mate.  You may even be biologically driven to mate during a time when resources are so scarce that your offspring don't survive to adulthood.  But those things are "natural".  Indeed, but no less horrifying than what some domestic animals sometimes suffer, oftentimes more so.

Few, if any "wild" animals die of old age.  


We can't allow the uneducated and misinformed to make our rules and laws for us, nor dictate what is best for our animals.  We can't let them hijack our lawmakers, or mandate care that is more than adequate and for some completely unnecessary.  We have to realize that many of those who oppose the keeping of domestic animals are deluded by thinking "wild and free" are the same as "happy and healthy" because they aren't.  And we have to know that whatever we do, we do because it is right for OUR situation, OUR animals, and OUR selves. I believe those who have studied animals, their behaviors, patterns, epidemiology of disease in their populations, resources and so on, are the experts.  If adultery, divorce, domestic violence and even addiction are any indicators, "love" isn't always the best tool for decision making.   Because if people will lose their mind over the perceived mistreatment of an animal they don't know has been dead for 60 million years, give or take, then how can they possibly know what is right for the animals that exist in our world today, or tomorrow?

Imports are....important?

Over the last few weeks, via Facebook, there have been several articles about the rescue of dogs from "meat" farms in areas like Korea and China.  Dogs in that part of the world, aren't treated the same as they are here.  And some people in those cultures believe that eating dog, especially during hot months, is good for your health.  While it's sad that dogs of any description are being raised and consumed for meat, (I cringe at people eating horse meat in other areas of the world too) these dogs aren't exactly "house pets".  They are raised specifically for their meat qualities, just like beef cattle or goats would be in the United States, and elsewhere.  They are kept and raised like livestock, on commercial farms.

While efforts to save these dogs are noble, I take pause when I hear they are being flown back to the United States for placement into companion homes.  Dogs that are unsocialized, likely unvaccinated, do not know life outside of a cage, and have not been selectively bred to want, or seek human companionship, are being brought back to the U.S. and offered up for adoption to the general public.  I don't think it makes me a doomsayer to say that I see disaster looming over the horizon.  As a trainer, I wonder what type of screening process that families or individuals will have to go through in order to obtain one of these dogs.  And what type of help and support the adopting agency is going to offer to these families in the future.  Or will they just adopt the dogs out, pat themselves on the back for a job well done, and move on to the next sensational rescue?

PeTA has spent years on an ad campaign that has conditioned many of us to think that, if you purchase a purebred dog, you are condemning a shelter dog to die elsewhere, and because of your "selfishness" a worthy dog is overlooked and pays the ultimate price.  Kinda harsh, huh?  The reality of the situation is not quite so simple.  Many of us, myself included, enjoy owning purebred dogs.  We enjoy the looks of a specific breed, being able to reliably anticipate anything from feed bills to grooming requirements.  We know what, typically, our purebred will excel at, and which areas they would bomb.  We can also, reasonably, count on life span and health (both good and bad) to be included in those norms.  Not to mention intelligence and exercise requirements.  And while PeTA might say that death results from our personal choices, many also, would not go to a shelter to obtain a dog, even if a specific purebred were not available at the time.  I don't feel selfish in this decision.  It's my choice, and yours as well.

So why, if shelter dogs are still being euthanized daily in the U.S. (even though recent studies point to greatly reduced numbers of shelter animals because of ad campaigns that push adoption, spay and neuter, and demonize breeding) would anyone move more homeless animals into the United States?  Aren't those 60 or so dogs in the same boat with every other shelter dog here?  And since they are also mongrels, aren't they taking homes away from 60 shelter dogs that were already here? Lying on a cold concrete floor waiting for a shelter volunteer to spend a few minutes with them each day while they wait for a permanent home?  The reason is actually quite simple.  People feel MORE GOOD about themselves when they can do something good as part of something BIG, rather than a smaller simple act, that would arguably be just as impactful.  (Consider the fact that many people would rather donate to very large organizations like PeTA and HSUS, rather than donating to their local shelter where they could actually see how those donations were used, and the animals benefiting from them) Meaning; people who adopt a "meat trade" dog feel better about adopting, and sometimes generate a vacancy in their home that wasn't there the day before, to be part of a sensational media story.  So they can feel like hero's in some respect, for rescuing an animal that was "really" in trouble (and there is nothing wrong with that). Adopting ANY homeless or shelter dog is equally meaningful TO THAT DOG, regardless of their background or story. Those that apply for these dogs were likely not visiting shelters the week before, looking for their next companion.  A slot opened up in their home only after they heard the story.  And who doesn't love a good story?  When you're out at the pet store, home improvement store, local ball field or dog park, a dog is a great ice breaker.  A dog with an amazing story is even more so.  But, no matter how dull or uninteresting a shelter dogs story may be, they all deserve a hero, not just the ones on the 6 o' clock news.  And rest assured, EVERY dog has a story, some I would wager, more horrific than being someone's sandwich. 

After hurricane Katrina, I ran into hundreds of people who claimed what they had on the end of their leash was a "Katrina" dog.  So much so, that after a while, I suspected that they were lying, or had been lied to.  I live in a small city, surrounded by a few smaller towns, and about 30 minutes away is a fairly large city.  We are not a bustling metropolis by any means.  So how had all these Katrina dogs found their way to this area?  When the hurricane was over, and people started spreading the word that there were going to be many homeless animals that would need to be moved from that area, I went and put our rescues name in the pot for terriers of any description, Dachshunds, and Aussies.  The breeds that I was familiar with.  We had a fully fleshed out website with education, information and references they could look at to see we had been a legitimate rescue for some years.  I never heard back from a soul.  Meanwhile, there were people all around me claiming to be adopting out or having adopted Katrina dogs.  I just scratched my head, figured that perhaps my choices of dogs to take had been too limiting, and just went on my merry way.

At the time, it would have been ludicrously easy to move some hard to place dogs that you might have had for some time in your program, by just calling them "Katrina" dogs.  After all, we've already seen people open up their homes for "just one more" when it's part of a sensational media story.  So it would be a little unreasonable to assume that someone didn't see the opportunity and exploit it.  Years later, looking back, I think that more than a few did.  And who could blame them? If the end result is that a dog got a loving home for the rest of it's life, you had a slot open up to take yet another dog to foster, and you got an adoption fee to buy food for your fosters next week, what harm did it do, really?

Except that it's dishonest.

Call me old fashioned if you will, I don't consider it an insult.  But I see myself as part of a small group of people who cling to the last vestiges of honesty.  I can only hope, in retrospect, that anyone involved with Katrina rescues was then, and the group moving 60 meat industry dogs into California for adoption, are now.  I hope that they are honest with themselves and with adopters that these dogs will have a lot of work to do to be cherished companions.  I hope that they will be honest in saying that it will take hours upon hours for some of them to be able to handle life in general.  Some may never completely housebreak.   Many will never be the kind of dog you take to the hardware store, garden center, or dog park.   I hope that they offer resources and support for these adopters, and don't consider their work done with the signing of a form and the pocketing of a check.  I hope that their good intentions do truly turn into good works.  And I sincerely hope, that 60 dogs, with no media madness to tell THEIR story no matter how mundane, get adopted too.  Because in the end, they are all worthy, and they are all important.  I just honestly think that every dog here should have a home, before we reach across our borders and help companions in other countries.  Having a story to tell is only the beginning.  And there are millions of stories in shelters right now, waiting to be told.  I just wish there were that many people who wanted to share them, as there are for those meat industry dogs. 

Retailing.....real tails

As someone involved in the rescue movement myself, I can say to you honestly, the bottom line is doing what is best for the individual dog.  Each dog is different.  Just like people they have different needs.  Some can tolerate older kids, some can not.  Some need special care and handling, or have special needs, some do not.  But at the end of the day, it's about them.  Each and every one, and if that's NOT the reason you're doing it, you're doing it wrong. 

Years ago, I got a phone call from a middle aged woman who had a 12 week old Scottie pup.  Her husband had just, unexpectedly, lost his job.  She was in a panic.  She didn't know what to do with the little guy.  They were looking at having to transfer to an apartment and it was either one that didn't accept dogs, or they lacked money for the deposit.  This was totally understandable.  I harbored no secret hatred in my heart for this woman, because she was obviously heartbroken, and only wanted what was best for her new puppy.

I honestly have never understood why shelter workers and rescuers treat people with such disdain.  I realize it's shallow to give up a dog because it doesn't match the new carpet, or their hubby has suddenly developed allergies.  How could it be described as anything but that?  BUT....don't you WANT that dog to go somewhere where it has at least a chance at a better life with an owner who would consider it more than a floor accessory?  Why on earth you would guilt or shame someone into keeping a dog in a perpetual state of neglect is beyond me.  I'm sure there are more than a double handful of people in this world who have relegated a dog to a chain, or the backyard, or a kennel because of the open shaming that rescuers, shelter workers, and dog owners in general are guilty of when people give up dogs for, what some may consider "less than reasonable" reasons.  Again, in my house, at the end of the day, it's all about the dogs, and the life they are living.  I have no time to waste my thoughts, energy or resources on someone who is shallow, narcissistic, fickle, or irresponsible. I have always held in high esteem, owners who take into consideration the needs of their pets, before their own personal wants.  Its not always the easiest thing to do. 

I met with the woman, who, tears streaming, handed her boy over to me.  I couldn't help but cry too.  She obviously loved the little guy to death.  (How could you not? He was a SCOTTIE after all...) We parted ways, and I took him home to start on his training before he was placed.  (Oh....and that's another thing.  Anyone calling themselves a rescue, that places ANY dog sight unseen, or within 24 hours of obtaining the dog, is nothing short of irresponsible in my eyes.  More on that in a minute.)  I was given his veterinary records, so he was good to go on that front, but I needed to get a feel for his personality, "torture" test him (and I use that term humorously and loosely) and do some basic training...leash walking, sits, downs, taking treats politely, house training, etc.  Stuff any good dog should know.  Our rescue's philosophy was to do everything possible to make sure that once placed, these dogs were NEVER given up again.  As a trainer, I went over and above to ensure this happened with every dog we took in. 

Two weeks later, I get a call from the same woman, asking if I had the puppy-boy still.  I said I did, certainly.  Their situation had miraculously changed, her husband had been fortunate in finding a job much more quickly than anticipated.  She wanted to know if she could have him back.  Without flinching, I said "yes".  I drove to meet her, and tears flowed again, this time of joy!  The baby was soooo happy to see his mama, and I was happy that I could return the pup to his original owner.  She offered me $100 for my troubles, I declined, and she vehemently insisted.  So I took her generous donation, and called it a successful and happy day. 

I could have placed that pup the day I got him.  I could have charged upwards of $600 for him, because he was still a puppy. I could have claimed that any "profit" I made from him, was put in the pot to help offset the cost of other rescues, that might have needed more expensive medical care.  I could have claimed that by signing the paperwork that she did when she gave him up, she had forfeited her rights to him...permanently.  I could have claimed that she was an unfit owner, because she chose to give him up, what may have appeared to some, hastily.  But I did none of those things.  I gave him back to a selfless owner, who cared enough to put HIM first.  THOSE are the types of homes that we look for in placing dogs through rescue!  I don't expect you to be rich, live on the "good"side of town, be a stay at home dog mommy or daddy, but if you care enough about a life outside yourself to deal with the emotional fallout of making the RIGHT decision for something totally reliant on your for their care and well being, you are the RIGHT home in my book!

If my feed on Facebook is any indication, "retail" rescue, or flipping dogs for money, is reaching epidemic proportions.  It seems almost daily I see another article on a dog who was just "retailed" or get an update on an owners legal battle to get back, what should still legally be theirs.  Owners who had the forethought to microchip their dogs, are having their dogs handed over to these "rescues" before even the standard shelter hold period is up.  Owners who as soon as they notice their dogs are missing, canvas neighborhoods, start putting up flyers, start calling shelters, vets and other agencies hoping someone has seen precious companion, are being told by "retailers" (when the owners finally catch up to them), that their dog either isn't going to be handed over, or it's been placed.  Typically, out of state.  Dogs are being stolen off the streets, and flipped like flapjacks to the tune of huge profits.  Typical rescues charge nominal fees that HELP cover (notice I said "help" and not "completely") any medical bills incurred by typical veterinary procedures that dogs need done before placement.  Such as, spay, neuter, heartworm test and/or treatment, vaccinations, worming, flea medication, and so on.    These dogs are being "placed" (if you can call it that, "sold" seems the better term) less than 24 hours after being picked up by the rescue.  And being sold for anywhere between half of what a REPUTABLE show breeder would charge, to in excess of that amount. And many times those animals have yet to see the inside of a vet's office.  Thats right.  100% pure, untaxed, non-profit, profit.  That, to me, is obscenely irresponsible.  Used car salesmen put more time into making sure a used car is running correctly than this, and I dare say are considerably more honest.  

Not to mention, they are manipulating the AR culture to make it easier for them to make a quick buck.  In the past 10 years, we have been bombarded with images of sad dogs and puppies in shelters, heads down, while tear jerking music wails away in the background.  I know some people who find it so upsetting they have to change the channel.  So unscrupulous folks have jumped on the bandwagon, and decided that creating a back story for a dog, throwing in a few key, choice words like; abused, neglected, and abandoned not to mention breeder, hoarder, puppy miller or irresponsible owner, and claiming to be saving these dogs from a horrible fate, are slapping a sizable price tag on these dogs, and making huge tax-free profits.

Answer this honestly: If someone told you a dog being offered from a rescue had been abused in any way, would you ask for proof?  I wouldn't, and I'm pretty skeptical and certainly not naive in any way.  I'm fairly sure most of us wouldn't ask for proof.  It's amazing as human beings, the amount of subconscious trust we put in other individuals, without ever thinking about it, or questioning it.  But I digress...

Rescues that place dogs in less than 24 or 48 hours after taking possession of them, are in my mind nothing but irresponsible.  If rescues main goal, is to ensure that NONE of these dogs are ever given up again (which is generally how we differentiate ourselves from shelters), how does that give you time to temperament test?  critter test?  test with children?  other pets?  make a vet appointment for a general wellness checkup?  make an appointment for spay or neuter surgery? (not to mention allow the dog to recover) take them out for a walk to see if they are afraid of traffic, motorcycles, crowds, loud noises, and so on?  How do you screen owners if you don't really take TIME to get to know the dog?  How can you make a successful placement, thereby doing the absolute best you CAN for the dog, if you never take a chance and at least get to know them on a personal level.  The answer is? You can't.  Those people are doing it to line their pockets and nothing more. 

Rescue is starting to get a very tarnished image because of these people.  Which in turn make people wary of dealing with us, and makes it harder for those of us who are legitimate rescues to save the few that we can manage.  The AR culture has set the stage.  They have learned how to turn on the emotions, (and consequentially turn off the logic), better than Walt Disney could have done himself.  They have made it easy for people to prey on and profit from peoples emotions, and those who really do love animals, their innate desire to help, even if it's just one at a time.  We need to take a stand against these "for profit" rescues.  We need to call them out.  We need to forward the stories, and support the owners, of those dogs who were "retailed" for profit.  We need to educate the public on what rescue REALLY is all about, and make them aware that it shouldn't come with a hefty price tag, nor lack of rudimentary vet care.  We need to point them out when we recognize them, so that Joe Petowner doesn't get fooled.  And we need to do it for the most important reason as well.  We need to do it for the dogs who are just being sold off left and right, without a care as to finding the "right" home.  When the "right" home is the first one standing there with an open wallet, we have sadly failed them already. 

His name.....was Jagger

If you aren't familiar with the name "Jagger" in the last few weeks, you aren't alone.  Chances are you never saw it because there was much more "sensational" news going on, in the form of alleged mishandling and bad conduct within the dog world.  But real abuse, that resulted in a dogs untimely death, is alleged to have happened at Crufts, and it was completely overshadowed by something minor, miniscule and mundane.  The Irish Setter, "Jagger" whose registered name was Thendara Satisfaction, died the day after returning to Belgium from Crufts.  The owners of the dog claim that other than the time the dog was benched at the show, he was never out of their sight.  As of this writing, toxicology reports are still out, and the owners are still awaiting a general timeline for the poisoning.  Meat chunks, laced with a black substance, were found by their vet upon necropsy.  There have also been whispers of a second dog dying shortly after returning home, and 6 to 8 others becoming ill.

Poisonings at dog shows are not new.  Mercifully they don't happen frequently, but this isn't the first time that it's ever happened.  And even if the toxicology reports come back that the dog was NOT poisoned at Crufts, I am still deeply saddened for the family and their loss.  I am also very sad for the dog owning community that an actual story of "abuse" happened at the show, and people on the internet were too busy forming a virtual lynch mob over what, for years, has been "normal" terrier handling.  Where is the outrage over the dead dog? Where is the lynch mob threatening to string up the gutless individual who poisoned a trusting canine during a dog show? Where is the petition to end benching at Crufts so dogs aren't left alone? Or up safety measures to ensure this doesn't happen again?  Sadly, as far as I know these things are non existent. 

Dog people, we are in deep trouble.  If this is the way the world is leaning, and unfortunately the internet has become the source of many peoples "world", then we may already be so far down this slippery slope that we can not recover.  I hope from the deepest places in my heart, that this simply isn't true.  As with all things though, only time will tell. 

From an Animal Rights perspective, Jagger is no longer their problem.  Jagger is dead, as they think he should be.  And as such, is no longer subject to the cold and callous world they think that we live in.  He can no longer be abused by being crated, paraded around for entertainment's sake, or held captive in a private home for the pure sadistic enjoyment of his obviously uncaring owners.  He has been granted total freedom, in their world view.  And therefore is not worthy of media, internet, or social media attention.  Best In Show winning Knopa is however still alive, and subject to the above mentioned "cruelties" and so was the vector for their propagandized wrath. 

Jagger deserves justice.  His family deserves answers.  His story deserves to be heard.  REAL abuse happens every day.  Abuse that causes pain, injury, long term suffering, and in some cases death.  As dog fanciers, we need to realign our priorities and start focusing on what REALLY constitutes abuse.  We need to take opportunities to educate the public, from standing in the dog food isle at Wal-mart, to choosing what we bring attention to and credence to via social media, to talking to Joe Public at our local dog shows.  We need to promote pure bred dogs as a whole, not just "our" breed.  We need to stand together as mutual dog lovers and stand up for and defend one another, even if we don't see eye to eye on every single subject.  We need to start identifying abuse as abuse, and stop labeling differences of opinion, or different handling techniques "abuse".

And above all, we need to educate the general public about what the REAL goal of the Animal Rights movement is.  The total abolition of every...single....solitary...breed....type....strain or variety of domesticated animal.  When people donate to PeTA or HSUS they are only helping to drive us one step closer to a world that is sadder, less compassionate, less meaningful, and less healthy.  We need to encourage people to donate to their local animal shelter, or favorite breed rescue, where they can actually SEE what happens with their donation.  And for those who are leery of donating money, encourage them to donate supplies.  From yard sale finds, to buying an extra case of paper towels and a few bags of cat litter when they buy their monthly groceries.  We need to encourage the public to donate to the facilities that actually CARE about finding animals homes, instead of those whose core philosophy is "better off dead."

My heart goes out to Jaggers family, and thousands of other dogs just like him, who are legitimate victims of abuse.  Almost half of U.S. household own dogs.  Banded together we would be a force to be reckoned with.  We need to decide if it is worth it, that to keep our own dogs, we must make some concessions and compromises for the future of domestic animals as a whole.  I for one don't want to live in a world full of salads, empty crates, unoccupied beds, and movies that don't have a token dog as the hero or comic relief.  Do you?  Because the choice, is ultimately in each of our hands.  United we stand, divided we fall. 

Rethinking the word "Abuse"...

I watched a TV program recently where a young lady was kidnapped while hitch hiking to a friends house in California.  She was abducted, held against her will, and relegated to being a sex slave for many years.  She was tortured, made to sleep in a coffin sized compartment under her captors bed, and basically sensory deprived in order for her captors to maintain control over her.  She was lied to.  Told there was an "agency" that constantly monitored the house and would injure her and track down her family if she tried to escape.  She was physically and mentally manipulated in order to maintain control over her, and keep her docile.  I don't think that anyone reading this blog would disagree that this was "abuse".  The girl finally escaped with her life, if memory serves some 8 years later.  But I am sure that she will never be the same.

Now, take that story, and compare it to the recent story of  Rebecca Sara Joy Cross. A professional handler, and the woman who handled Knopa, (American bred, Russian owned McVan's to Russia with Love), the flawless Scottish Terrier who recently won BIS at Crufts.  Rebecca was absolutely fire-bombed by the KC and the internet community for lifting Knopa under her jaw, and by her tail, on and off of the exam table. People far and wide were screaming "abuse" at the top of their lungs, and calling for little Knopa to be stripped of her title.  That's right, "Abuse".  Putting it in literally the same category as the woman's plight mentioned above.  The last I checked the internet petition to strip Knopa of her BIS title had gained some 90,000 signatures.  That is a terrifying number of people who are uneducated and misinformed. 

I'm not here to argue about "if" Rebecca was reminded by judges or stewards throughout the day not to present Knopa this way.  Rebecca herself has even made a statement saying that nerves and the pressure of the moment had her acting on autopilot, and has apologized for her actions.  I would like to see any of the rest of us do any better under that type of "Super Bowl" sized pressure.  What I am here to argue, is that Rebecca's handling of a working type of terrier was in no way abuse, by any stretch of the word.  And here is why.

Working terriers were bred for centuries to be hearty and hale little dogs.  They were tough, rugged, and downright nasty when they had to be.  They were bred to, among other things, control any type of animal that would jeopardize the crofters meager livelihood.  This meant facing off against badger, fox, weasels, rats, and so on.  These dogs were, if not loved, looked upon with such importance that great care was taken not to lose a good one, should their attitude get them in over their thick, cinder block heads.  They were feisty, game, and in the case of the Scottie at least, had HUGE TEETH.  If one of these dogs went into a hole and for whatever reason could not or WOULD not come back out.  The farmer grabbed the only handle that was available.  The tail.  Grabbing one by the hip or leg and pulling, especially if the weight of what ever varmint they were in the process of dispatching was compounded on the other end, could end up in a dislocation, break or a permanently lame dog.  Not to mention if you have ever seen a working terrier in a hole, they tend to fold up their legs under them, and shift their weight backwards toward the rump, so that they can dig in, and leverage themselves from being dragged into an open space in the borrow where the prey would certainly have the advantage.  The tail is usually the only thing you have to grab.  And sometimes could mean the difference between life and death of a very important member of the farm and family.

The sturdiness of the tail is no accident.  The base of these terrier tails, when well bred, is thick with muscle.  You certainly wouldn't worry about breaking the tail, because of all the support it has.  It is literally no different than hauling a friend up by their forearm, or pulling someone over a ledge using their arm.  If someone is dangling to their death, you certainly don't grab a finger, which is delicate, fragile and not capable at all of supporting the full weight of a person.  You grab their forearm, ideally, and haul them back to safety.  An area of the body that has copious and strong muscle attachment to withstand the mechanical force.  Selective breeding has made terriers this way.  And even though most don't get stuck in a hole and have to be dragged out by their tails anymore, the structure of well bred dogs is still there. The breed standard, written to preserve the original purpose and structure of the dog, as well as responsible and conscientious breeders make sure that it is so. 

Now back to those teeth.  If you have never seen the teeth of a Scottish terrier, you would likely be surprised to know that their teeth are literally as large as any German Shepherd.  And the standard calls for Scotties to be roughly 20 lbs or so.  That's right.  An 80-100 lb dogs teeth, tucked into the mouth of a 20 lb dog.  Now that you know that, and hopefully are familiar with the fact that terriers in general are quick to let you know if they are experiencing unfairness, or discomfort, or just put out with the whole situation, why would ANYONE do anything to a terrier that would cause it pain, and risk being nailed with those massive teeth? The answer? Being lifted by the tail, when done correctly as Rebecca did Knopa, doesn't cause them any pain.  If you look closely at the associated video from Crufts, of the terrier Group judging, the judge even lifts Knopa up by her tail.  This is to check the musculature and attachment of the tail.  What most good judges SHOULD do.

And if that's not enough to convince you that no abuse was going on, there's also this.  I went back and watched the Terrier Group judging for Westminster KC, held just a few weeks ago.  In the terrier group, the Cairn, Lakeland, Norfolk, Scottie (which was also Knopa) and the Sealy were all lifted off of the judging table in this manner.  And nobody....said.....anything.  There were no gasps from the crowd, no comments from the announcers, no scowling by the judges, and no public outcry.  Seems strange that if this "abuse" was happening so often, and so publicly that no one was all up in arms after Westminster.  But they weren't. Terrier tails are, in judging, considered part of their overall attitude.  It conveys keenness, readiness, and that attitude that Terriers are renowned for.  Why would any handler in their right mind risk breaking, fracturing, dislocating, or injuring the tail, because after all, the tail has it's own set of points within the standard? If a terriers tail isn't correctly carried, it is penalized and you lose the ability to convey the overall "attitude" that is what terriers are known for.  Because as far as I have ever heard, and I've had Scotties almost 30 years, not one terrier has ever been injured by using this method. 

The internet has become a dangerous tool.  It allows people to take misinformation or doctored facts, and spin them to gain virtual lynch mobs against literally anyone who has an email, Facebook or connection of any sort.  One misinformed person, took the time to capture one frame of video, turn it into a photo, and start spreading the word far and wide that this was not only "abuse" but abuse so bad that their win should be taken away from them, and some that thought that Rebecca should never own or handle a dog again, ever!  And more frightening than that, is the number of breeders that were jumping on the bandwagon as well.  People who should know better, be better educated, and a better judge of both dog behavior and handlers reputation and character than the general public.  While we all may not choose to lift our terriers in this manner, and that decision is certainly yours to make, we as breeders, owners, fanciers, handlers, groomers and anyone with a vested interest in pure bred dogs need to put aside our difference, preferences and opinions and fire back at the world that THIS was not ABUSE! 

Abuse causes pain, anguish, insecurity, humiliation, worry, anxiety, fear and control.  I saw none of that between Knopa and her handler.  On the contrary, every video I watched of Rebecca and Knopa, just before Rebecca lifted her off the table, she adjusted her lead, kissed Knopa quickly on the head, put one hand under he jaw and one had on her tail, and lifted her swiftly to the ground.  Less than 2 literal seconds.  Does that sound like abuse? Or does that sound more like a caring partnership between two thinking creatures who love and respect one another? Knopas tail was up and she was ready to go, as soon as her feet touched the floor, and she showed like a champ!  Scotties are tough little dogs, but they are also quite sensitive and have an innate sense of fairness.  You simply can not "abuse" a dog, and get it to show the way that Knopa does.  If she were literally being abused, she would shut down.  The judge would see it, the crowd would see it, and she would not shine like she does in the show ring.  It's time we relegate the word "abuse" to those situations that really deserve it.  Situations where mental and physical anguish are EVIDENT, and not presumed by someone sitting behind a computer screen and taking "evidence" out of context.  It's time we stopped abusing the word...."abuse". 

Of Elephants...

While many were celebrating, what they consider a victory for animals, I was sitting in this chair mourning.  Mourning for the species we have already lost, that will never be seen again on this earth, and for those that are soon to vanish.  I count Elephants now, among them.  I don't want any animal to suffer certainly.  I have a 15 year old Scottie at my feet now, that I go miles out of my way to scratch, treat, hug, kiss, and interact with while he is still around.  I know his days are numbered.  But he is protected.  Someone cares about him.  And in a way that doesn't include releasing him into the wild, as nature intended.  He has cataracts and needs help getting around, and needs medicine, shelter and food to be comfortable and content.  And I am sure he would tell you he would be lost without his morning bowl of warm Cream of Wheat cereal, as he's had some iron and red cell issues in recent years.  I have a vested emotional, (and though I don't really LIKE the term in association with pets) somewhat parental interest in this dog.  I am his caregiver, champion, advocate, and benefactor.  I also happen to love dogs beyond measure if you can't tell. 

What does this have to do with Elephants you say?  Let me pose this: how would you ever become a dog lover, breeder, enthusiast, owner or advocate if you had never met one in person?  How would you become emotionally vested in their welfare and well being without access to roley-poley puppys, play bowing youngsters, or ball chasing adults?  How could you be driven to work with assistance dogs, if you'd never seen a guide dog, seizure alert dog, or Search and Rescue dog in action?  How would you become interested in obedience or agility if you'd never experienced the thrill of partnership and cooperation with your best furry buddy after getting a qualifying score in competition...together?  How would you ever know you wanted to become a breeder of pure bred dogs if you never experienced the joy and satisfaction of raising up a litter?  It would be quite challenging to develop those things from afar, and impossible if you didn't know those animals or events existed. 

If we don't have a vested emotional interest in Elephants, how could we ever be motivated to keep them protected as a species?  If future generations don't see Elephants as majestic, thinking and intelligent creatures, then they as a species are doomed to go the way of the Dodo and the Thylocine.  Lost forever.  And forever is quite real.  If the public doesn't see these animals in the Circus, in parades, or in Zoos, how do we have children to grow up into wildlife wardens, sanctuary owners, or advocates for RESPONSIBLE care of an animal that isn't even native to this continent, but is no less deserving of promotion and protection. How will anyone fall in love with Elephants if they only ever see them in books, on TV, or as the mascot of a College football team?    

The domestication of Elephants is not a new idea. Elephants have been in the service of mankind since, conservatively, 2000 BC.  They have served as Gods, mascots, loggers, companions and animals of war.  They have lived with us, and along side us century after century.  Domesticated elephants don't have to worry about poachers slaughtering them for their ivory, modern elephants don't have to worry about death from preventable disease or infection, not do they have to walk hundreds of miles to find water during a drought.  While domestication may come with less than ideal treatment in many cases, life in the wild is no better.  Circus elephants will never be eaten alive by a predator because it's to weak or ill to defend itself.  A zoo elephant will never starve to death slowly over weeks after being trapped in the mire of a diminishing water hole.  Most logging elephants will never have their faces cut off to remove their ivory.  Life can be equally harsh on both sides of the fence.  But humans need to be given the opportunity to get to know and take a stand for these animals, beautiful and intelligent as they are. 

Every creature on this planet deserves management and protection, whether predator or prey, domestic or wild, fish or fowl.  Each species and sub species has evolved to fill certain niches in the environment, and when we lose those species, something has to fill that void.  Impacts of those voids are often devastating to an ecosystem, causeing upheaval that can last decades.  And those impacts effect creatures from microscopic to monumental in the environment.  Elephants deserve protection and humane treatment.  Efforts to outline and enforce reasonable examples of mental and physical well being are the answer.  Not excising them from our culture like a cancer.  Not denying children the chance to know and admire such creatures and grow up to be advocates instead of abolitionists.  Again, Animal Rights organizations take small baby steps to keep pushing the norms of animal husbandry and management, until at last there are nothing but wild animals anymore.  Wild animals that we are mandated not to interfere with, not to rescue or rehabilitate, nor structure breeding programs around to bolster their numbers in this world.  

The problem that I have with that is this: Human beings still occupy this world.  And as long as human beings populate this planet, in ever increasing numbers, we will continue to destroy habitats, pollute ecosystems, deforest vast acres, and encroach on wildlife.  The sensible thing to do is to provide animals with protective laws, sanctuaries, rehabilitation, protected environments and so on.  But NOT to completely abolish domesticated animals.  We are trapped on this planet (so far) with every other living thing on it.  Living and working together with other species dates back 20,000 years or more.  Domestication is part of our contract for living on this planet WITH the inhabitants that also live here, providing us both with a better quality of life for the most part. 

When the Elephants are gone, the carriage horses retired, and the pure bred dogs banned, much of the joy and compassion we feel will be gone too.  Because animals are the best parts of people.  They are infinitely more easy to connect with, identify with, and relate to, than many people are because they are non discriminating, non judgmental, non sanctimonious, and more genuine.  They will not lie to you or betray you, because they lack those concepts.  I, personally, would rather live in a world where there is more of that, and less of it's opposite.  We can live in respectful domestic partnerships with animals, we just need to take a stand and make it happen. 

PeTA thoughts...

In the wake of the Westminster Kennel Club dog show, and the subsequent and ongoing talk about PETA, I would like to say a few things.  Firstly, know, that PETA’s main goal is to remove our ability to have ANY type of domestic animal for any purpose(1).  That means carriage horses, service dogs, pets, police dogs, chickens for production or meat, farm animals, search and rescue dogs, hamsters, ferrets, show dogs, and on and on.  It is their idea that, the only logical way to to end the “suffering” of domestic animals (pets, livestock, or other) is to make it to where humans are no longer able to own these animals.  Period.  “But my pets aren’t suffering,” you say?  Neither are mine, but that is beside the point.  They seriously believe that domestic dogs, bred for thousands of years to be in the service of mankind, are being tortured to the point of agony by sleeping on orthopedic beds, being provided with proper, reliable nutrition, being housed safely and in a responsible manner, being walked on leashes, and co-existing peacefully with their human owners.  I am sure that my dogs, and yours as well, would beg to differ if they could speak.  They are willing to toss 20,000 years of domestication by human beings, because an unfortunate handful of animals do end up being mistreated.  The same theory would be true if having children was completely outlawed everywhere, because some children are victims of molestation, domestic abuse, and neglect.  No one is suggesting such, because it punishes far more people than it benefits, and likely those abuses would just be shifted elsewhere.  

Secondly, PETA is a “death cult”.  I realize that word choice may seem harsh, but it seems the most descriptive, and accurate label for their policies.  A vast majority of PETA’s “services” involve euthanasia (3).  PETAs mission includes the “humane euthanasia” of animals who are ill, elderly or debilitated, and owned by people of fixed or limited incomes.  PETA also works with shelters and humane societies to provide the same “humane euthanasia” in places were outdated methods (such as gas chambers) are still in place, or in places where “untrained” technicians routinely administer fatal injections into the chest cavity, instead of intravenously through a leg.  They also euthanize any animal that is aggressive, seriously ill or injured that comes into their possession.  On the surface, it seems like PETA is offering a final kindness to many, many animals that might otherwise suffer, or languish on the streets, or with owners who can’t afford the vet bills or the cost of euthanasia.  But stop a minute and think about this.  According to a recent article (2), PETA took in $52,000,000 in donations last year.  That same year PETA took in 1,605 cats and euthanized 1,536 (a kill rate of 96% according to the article).  They also took in 1,021 dogs that year, 788 were euthanized, 210 transferred to “kill” shelters, and only 23 were adopted.  All this is a matter of public record.  That amounts to almost $20,000 they could have spent PER ANIMAL for medical treatment, surgery, testing, vaccinations, housing, food, etc.  With that amount of money PER ANIMAL you would think that PETA could save and adopt out more than 23 dogs in a calendar year.  But their goal is not to “save” as many animals as possible.  It has even bed said that PETA equates “no kill” shelters with “animal hoarders” stating that dogs are better off released from the cruelty of this world, than to have basic care for a few weeks or months, until a permanent home can be found.  

"We are not in the home finding business, although it is certainly true that we do find homes from time to time for the kind of animals people are looking for. Our service is to provide a peaceful and painless death to animals who no one wants."

-- Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA President, The Virginian-Pilot, July 20, 2005

It sounds completely ludacris, right? But it isn’t.  Currently, I have dogs, cats and chickens.  The chickens are mostly pets, and are kept for their egg production (if you have never tasted a farm fresh egg, from free range chickens, it will make store bought eggs taste like cardboard in comparison!).  I have in the past owned, ferrets, rats, fish and rabbits.  Some were rescues, some were purchased, some were raised.  PETA would like to see that aspect of our lives disappear altogether.  No more teaching children compassion and responsibility by including “pet” chores in their raising.  No more service dogs for the disabled, or guide dogs for the blind.  No more eggs for breakfast, steak for dinner, or sausage for brunch.  No more trips to the zoo, to learn about animals that aren’t native to this continent.  No more medical testing, leading to better pet and human health (many medical procedures, that save countless human lives daily, were perfected on animal models first).  No more teaching generations about conservation, by harvesting controlled numbers of target animals, thereby SPARING them from death by starvation or disease.  No hunting, no fishing, no dog shows, no meat, no more medical breakthroughs, no pets.  Think about what a large chunk of our lives those things encompass.  

Thirdly, PETA’s tactics are sneaky.  The chip away gradually, using already existing laws, or statutes and lobbying for them to be expanded or amended(4).  They “rescue” dogs, only to have them euthanized later, without ever even attempting to find them homes.  Because their philosophy is, “Better off dead…”.  A dead dog, no matter what conditions it came from, is immune to any type of suffering permanently.  If they cared about animals, they would make strides to ensure they were cared for properly, adopted out to the RIGHT homes, and given every opportunity to thrive.  Instead they euthanize (under the guise of there not being enough homes everywhere), guilt (Adopt don’t shop! or Everytime you buy from a breeder, you condemn a shelter dog to death!) and use emotional videos and pleas to get you to have an EMOTIONAL (not rational) reaction to what is going on.  Sometimes even going to great lengths to fabricate the “abuse” they are claiming to document (5)(6).  I have had Scottish Terriers for 27 years now.  None of my dogs have ever condemned a shelter dog to die, because I would not be going to a shelter to select a dog.  I believe that mixed breed and rescue dogs are worthy (I did rescue for some 12 years) but they are not always the choice for everyone.  If you love mutts, GREAT! I’m not going to try and talk you into owning a Scottish Terrier.  Go forth and rescue!  But that’s not for me.  I am an advocate of pure bred dogs.

This is a dangerous slope.  They try to mislead the public and say that breeders breed exaggerated and crippled examples of dogs, that spend a lifetime in excruciating pain, for the almighty dollar (7).  That even “show” breeders house their winners in wire bottom cages by the dozens out behind some barn somewhere.  Or that we only show our dogs so that we can charge more money for the puppies!  Those of us who breed know better.  There may be occasions where a dog has some painful or debilitating condition (I currently own a Scottie with CA) or a show breeder who mishandles their stock, but those animals are the EXCEPTION and not the reality in the world of dogs.  Responsible breeders do their best to make sure those conditions aren’t perpetuated in our bloodlines.  But even with the best testing, decision making and interventions, dogs will still get sick.  Just like humans do.  Despite anyones best efforts.  

Imagine for a moment that you find out your Grandmother has cancer.  Now imagine an organization, claiming to be supportive, caring and looking out for the best interest of the elderly (maybe they run a National chain of Nursing Homes, or hospitals specializing in geriatric care).  This group runs an ad campaign claiming that “humane euthanasia” is the best thing to do for Gran, because, obviously you love her, and don’t want her to suffer AT ALL, do you?  And cancer is painful.  So is chemo.  If you love your Gran, when she becomes ill at all, you should release her from her pain, after all, It’s the kindest thing to do.  That is COMPLETELY out of the ball-park nuts to say the least.  Because after all, that would deny your grandmother any quality of life she might have, based on the assumption that shes suffering terribly (even though she might tell you she’s not).  That is what PETA does.  They run emotional ad campaigns, soliciting donations under the guise of being an organization that looks out for the best interest of animals.  But they really don’t have, what the general public at least, would consider “best interests” in mind at all.  

This, is what PETA’s primary goal is, their ultimate “vision”

“For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship — enjoyment at a distance.(8)”

“enjoyment at a distance”, that’s right.  The ONLY animals in PETA’s utopian vision, would be wild animals, enjoyed at a distance, we would all be VEGAN (meaning no milk, eggs, fish or anything other than plant products) and that is their end goal.  And since Scottish Terriers, Arabian horses, Scottish Highland cattle, Nigerian dwarf goats, Rhode Island Red chickens, Tennessee fainting goats, Persian cats, and countless other “breeds” would not exist in a wild state, they would all be considered just a distant memory.  

And if that’s not bad enough to get to you think twice, suppose we fast forward to PETA’s utopian vision.  We’ve all been converted to being Vegan, like it or not.  We only eat things that come from plant sources, consider this: It would still be illegal/impermissible to: poison rats that were eating/contaminating your grain stores, shoot rabbits or deer that were invading your garden and eating the only source of food you had to live on, kill raccoons who were acting erratically and could possibly have rabies, hit a coyote or a moose with your car, and so on.  Because in PETA’s world vision, animals have just as much right to life and freedoms as human beings do.  That’s right a rat = dog = fish = buffalo = eagle = child.  And while perhaps noble in theory, isn’t in any way practical.  If a bear is running at your child, you are not going to stand back and let “survival of the fittest” happen, you are going to defend your child (or any other family member) because in human society, humans have ultimate value above any animals.  

Humans have domesticated animals for centuries to deal with these very problems.  Terriers were bred to deal with vermin.  Cattle were developed for milk and meat properties because as we developed agriculture, we no longer had the luxury to run after migrating herds of elk and buffalo.  Before cotton, sheep and goats provided us with fiber to clothe ourselves and our offspring.  Herding breeds keep those sheep in check, while guardian breeds kept them safe when the farmer wasn’t around.  Fish provided easily obtainable sources of protein, with minimal risk for injury, and fertilizer to newly emerging crops.  Domestic fowl provided cheap protein, and when laying tapered off, a nice meal for the table.  Horses took us to faraway places, carried our goods to market, and lugged us into battle.  Our lives as human beings, are inextricably woven with all that is around us, animals, the environment, and so on.  If we lose our domestic animals, along with our ability to conserve wild ones, we lose touch with our history and humanity, and ultimately this planet.  In addition to losing companions and compatriots part of being human is being able to connect with something outside ourselves.  Which serves to not only remind us of our uniqueness, but ground us in the fact that we aren’t as unique as we once thought we were.  Engaging with something that you have to work at to understand, because it lacks verbal language, is one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences of life.  Dedicating your life to preserving and protecting those things, deepens the experience even more.  Who hasn’t had a dog, cat or horse intuitively know that you are sad, depressed, or upset about something and made some sort of move to comfort, and maybe in some small way understand or alleviate our pain?  We owe a large part of our existence to domesticated animals, it seems unthinkable to let someone take that away.  

So the next time you see a PETA ad on television, or get a letter in the mail, that gets you right in the “feels”, take a minute and think about what you are actually donating to.  A world where ONLY wild animals exist.  A world where the standards are so high, that dogs and cats with basic needs met are seen as so miserable, killing them is better than having them wait a few weeks or a few months for a loving, permanent home. A world where the end goal is so viscerally important, that fabricating evidence, even if that includes harming some animals in the process, is just part of the game plan.  Then, after your stomach stops churning, take your checkbook, and send a donation to your LOCAL shelter, or animal rescue.  Put your money to work where you can SEE what is being done with it, and make a REAL difference for domesticated animals that deserve more than just alleviated suffering, but a chance to LIVE!  

1. http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/  
2. http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?cat=10
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Killing_of_shelter_animals
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/peta-hires-lobbyist-to-sq_b_6684966.html
5. http://dairycarrie.com/2014/08/12/peta-dairy-farm-video/
6. https://topcatsroar.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/animal-welfare-v-animal-rights-skinned-alive-is-a-myth/
7. http://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animal-issues/pet-trade/breeders/
8. https://www.activistfacts.com/person/ingrid-newkirk/
   

For more information:

PETA Euthanized A Lot Of Animals At Its Shelter In 2014, And No-Kill Advocates Are Not Happy About It http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/pets-shelter-euthanization-rate_n_6612490.html

PETA recommends euthanizing ALL Pitt Bulls or mixes (amoung other things) This was a letter sent to the Mayor of Williamson Co. TN    http://www.nathanwinograd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/PETAWilliamson.pdf

Dogs killed by PETA (graphic) I include this ONLY because the dogs look plump and healthy (except one puppy who migh have had mange) and all were destroyed  http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.org/photos/

Philosophy on Euthanasia vs. more shelters (From their website) http://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/couldnt-we-just-build-more-animal-shelters-rather-than-euthanize-dogs-and-cats/

PETA states your dog will “likley thrive” on a vegetarian diet (from their website) http://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/is-it-safe-to-feed-my-dog-or-cat-a-vegetarian-diet/

PETA’s “Better off Dead” philosophy (also touches on Pitt Bulls and Ferals) http://blogs.bestfriends.org/index.php/2011/01/25/petas-better-off-dead-philosophy/