One generation and out
Permission to Cross Post "Potentially Dangerous Animal Owners" - Linda D. Witouski - November, 2008 At a recent show, I couldn't help but notice the availability of space. Not only was the parking prime, but the space around the rings inside the building was incredible. There were dozens of empty chairs ringside - a commodity generally not so available. It was at that moment that I looked around the building and a queasy feeling crept over me. Not only was this building bare, but the people in attendance were mostly my age. That age where you hope you can begin your downward decent into living in peace and quiet after having been involved in this sport since the crib, and looking forward to those "twilight" years or a dirt nap, whichever. I reached for the judging schedule to see how many Juniors were entered. Nine. Only nine. I realize that the economy could very well have a definite impact on our sport, however, there are other factions that have a hand in it.' It hit me like a brick ! When Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States said, (1993), "One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding," it dawned on me that he wasn't only referring to the animals - he was talking about US. ONE GENERATION AND OUT IS CLOSER THAN YOU THINK The animal rights movement pressed into school systems and devised an educational program for every animal venue. Farming, exhibits, zoos, wildlife, environment, veterinarians, companion animals - no stone was left unturned. It doesn't matter what we do, it's surely not in accordance with the animal rights activist groups. Looking around at the very few young people at dog shows,and the lack of newcomers of any age, it's become quite clear that the meaning of "one generation and out" wasn't only meant for the dogs. The animal rights activist movement has taken over the media, veterinarian, public & private schools, animal control & training of those animal control officers as well as lobbyists and legislators. They've infiltrated every thread of what we hold dear. Working together, they have managed to convince everybody and anybody that they are "THE" experts and anything that we do is wrong and a disservice to animals. Young people that we should have taken under our wings have turned to assisting the movement and most unfortunately, will never know the joy of our sport. They will never learn what animal husbandry truly is nor will they ever understand the pride of having bred, loved, cared for and promoted something that upholds the standards that reputable breeders honor. They'll never know that special bond that develops nor will they learn to distinguish between the joy of victory and the agony of defeat. Worse, they may never learn that people are supposed to be able to make choices that best suit them - before it's too late. It's up to all of us to take back what has been stolen from us and to learn, quickly, to work together as one. If we don't take the time to reach out and touch someone now, our sport, our animals and our rights are doomed. If we don't make every effort to bring new people into our fold, who will take over for you when you hang up your leads? Who will preserve and continue to improve your breed and your standards? What difference will all of the health research mean when the results are returned - too late - because you are no longer permitted to have animals or the ones you do have must be spayed & neutered? How will all of that research help when breeding is no longer permitted or the monetary expense to breed far outweighs logic? Are you content to see it all fall by the wayside knowing the only animals the future will see will be in museums or books? The animal rights movement is taking away our future, and we, the majority of the showing populace, are dangerously & extremely close to being - One generation and out. ENTICING NEWCOMERS or SHOOING THEM AWAY? A great majority of the showing populace has always had an attitude, particularly when a new person would approach them at a show inquiring about their breed or the dogs being shown. This anomaly existed way back when and it still exists today. Looking back, it's clear that this attitude that some still carry with them, is a great part of the problems today. We actually shooed people away, thinking that our world would never come to an end and there would be plenty more opportunities to advance our 'lines.' The showing fancy wasn't thinking about the future and judging by some still existing attitudes, still aren't realizing the bleak future of our sport confronting us. We live in America and we can do what we want, can't we? Dog shows will always exist...won't they? Worse yet, there are still those individuals that just cannot seem to get along with their own club members and those within their own breeds, insisting on making life difficult for others by continuing to add fuel to whatever fire some disgruntled person started for no apparent reason other than their own agenda. Some would suggest that those reasons include selfishness, jealousy and just plain hatred for anybody that might be doing better in the sport than others or those really dangerous persons that think that "they know it all" without having the experience of those before them whom they should be learning from. All of these factors are nothing more than additions to the animal rights movement. If you are one of these, you might as well join forces with the opposition and stop hiding behind your animals. If you believe that your actions against others will keep you safe, be forewarned that you are not exempt from that knock on the door. Every person within your club or breed that you destroy, demean or otherwise terrorize, adds another nail to the coffin we are all facing. What kind of message are you sending to younger people or any other persons that might have an interest in our sport when they discover that those who have been in the sport 'forever' seem to be hell bent on destroying each other and that they are incapable of working together or helping each other? How in the world can you educate or assist a NEW person interested in the sport or your breed when you can't seem to find the time to stop fighting amongst your peers and become that helpful educator? IT DOESN'T AFFECT ME - WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT IT I actually have grown fond of this ridiculous comment because it gives me the opportunity to explain what it actually means and why those who use this lame excuse are definitely closer to being one generation and out than those who understand the circumstances. Let me set the record straight using a few of the popular "reasons" I have been given over the years. Everything that goes on in the animal world, especially legislatively, affects everybody. Cropping and docking. You don't crop or dock, either by choice (while still available) or because you don't have a breed that requires or prefers it. That doesn't mean that you should sit back ignoring that ban, law or ordinance and not assist those breeds that DO, for rest assured, along with that cropping/docking issue, another issue will follow that WILL affect you and your breed. By not assisting, you are allowing for your own loss of freedom of choice. Mandatory spay/neuter laws. You don't live there so it doesn't affect you, but if you don't assist that area, it surely WILL affect you in short order for it will continue to spread like a California wildfire if everybody continues to believe that 'it doesn't affect me'. Maybe not today, but what will tomorrow bring to your neighborhood, state, city, town or county? BSL, breed specific legislation. You don't have "one of those breeds". Are you sure? It wouldn't take more than an animal hating neighbor, mailperson, meter reader, delivery person or some unruly kid from up the street to report your five pound, barking, snarling, fence running 'potentially dangerous dog' even if the dog wasn't lucky enough to get a bite in ! The next thing you know, officials are at your house and you are subjected to defending yourself and trying to get your dog out of protective custody all at great expense. It IS important for everybody to work together for make no mistake, it will come to you just like it came to the other guy. You remember him - the one that kept saying that it didn't affect him? So, those of you that use the old 'it doesn't affect me' excuse, think about it before you say it or come up with something better. Of all the emails I receive, the most common is "What can I do about it? It's just the way it is." This is not true and you are only deceiving yourself if you believe that. You, we, are the only ones that CAN do something about it. We are the ones that are losing our integrity, pride and reputations and the irony is that it's being taken from us by those who don't have near the 'expertise' that we have. What they do have is talent in "marketing, promoting and fund raising". It's up to all of us to become astute in these same areas, reverse the current trend and take back what is ours. Need a few common suggestions? Here, let me help you out ...Advertise for new club members, start a kennel club/breed club blog, hold fun events for the public, stop by that place that you are 'sure' is a puppy mill, visit that commercial kennel - get to know them before you make any comments, offer tips and suggestions, help them, listen to them, befriend them, educate them and be educated in return - go over to Farmer Bob's, step over those cow paddies and talk to him, ask him if he knows his right to farm or raise livestock is endangered, go to schools and ask to speak to the children, make arrangements to take dogs with you, get media attention by working with children - sponsoring adoption days (purebred or otherwise) or turning your club classes into a class to teach responsible animal ownership and safety around dogs and invite parents as well as senior citizens, get them to help with fundraising, stop by your town hall and ask for the meeting agenda, check for any agenda subject animal related and attend the meeting, talk to churches, hunters, any sportsmen, call a special kennel club or breed club meeting of those members that are still active (before they hang up their leads or take that dirt nap) and discuss ideas, research your towns and participate in events offered, check with girl scouts, boy scouts, invite them to your shows or public events, attend council meetings, introduce yourself, (invite them to your events & shows,too), and get involved with rescue work in your breed. Pure breed rescue is one of the biggest problems that we have - every time one shows up in some shelter, every breeder is accused of putting it there - the fingers don't only point to the irresponsible breeders. We are all affected and the time has now come to be effective rather than affected. USE THAT TOOL THAT'S ON YOUR SHOULDERS The AKC has many informative brochures, flyers and pamphlets that can be placed in assorted locations and they have educational programs that can be used in school systems. They can provide you with CD's, DVD's, classroom workbooks for teachers and a large assortment of other publications that can be used for just about any venue, including legislators. Take advantage of them. Utilize the tools that are available to you, especially that one that sits on your shoulders... and get creative. We are losing everything that we've worked so hard to achieve. We're losing our 'expert' title, our rights, our freedom of choice, our animals - and it just keeps coming with no end in sight, except our demise. There are many other organizations, pet law lists, and breed legislation lists that are jam packed with good information that you can use. All you need to do is ... DO IT - before it's too late to do, and my friends, that time is quick approaching. The plane is circling the airport for a landing and we need more people standing on the runway....! THE CHALLENGE The dog fancy is generally not very laid back and those that I know will fight to the bitter end about any subject We've always had the spit 'n' fire to strike back. Where is that aggressiveness now? For those that have told me that they fear some sort of retaliation, know that the more visible you are, the less likely you are to be targeted. With that said, how many of you will step up and start working toward reversing the travesty befalling us? How many of you will make an effort to stop using derogatory terms or take the time to educate? How many will prove that they are part of the dedicated fancy and work together to make a difference? And, last, but not least, I don't want to forget about those in the sport that I mentioned earlier who are still intent on being vicious towards their comrades. Those who can't seem to get past making their own breed and club members miserable and those who can't stop complaining about or accusing their peers of some heinous crime, hi volume breeders or commercial facilities. You have a "special gift" and it's time for you to put it to better use against those who would see you dog-less, or just let us all know when you fall off the fence into the AR pit so we can start working on a "potentially dangerous animal owner" law. Linda D. Witouski AKC Judge & Delegate AKC SC Legislation Representative Legislation Chair, BOD & Delegate - Myrtle Beach Kennel Club, Inc. Legislation Chair - Minature Pinscher Club of America, Inc. Legislation Chair - Yankee Miniature Pinscher Club, Inc. SC Camo Coalition Steering Committee SC Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses Legislation Editor & Investigative Reporter - National Pet Press/The Dog Press Co-Author - Monthly National Legislation Report - http://mnlreport.typepad.com/the_monthly_national_legi/ Owner: DogLegislation@yahoogroups.com Owner: MinPinInReview@yahoogroups.com Owner: SC Animal, Sportsmen & Wildlife Voting Coalition |
|
|
| So animal rights activists are to blame for empty chairs at dog shows?
I think this belongs in food for thought... |
Lil Walty wrote: So animal rights activists are to blame for empty chairs at dog shows?
I think this belongs in food for thought... Actually, since it's aimed at breeders, exhibitors, the clubs and others who understand what's at stake, it belongs right here. And quite possibly in the OET. I've already brought it to our editor's attention. Kristine |
Lil Walty wrote: So animal rights activists are to blame for empty chairs at dog shows?
Well, I doubt they are concerned about no new dog show people. I was just updating my Google account and I found it odd that Goggle offers a daily PETA headline option. |
Mad Dog wrote: Lil Walty wrote: So animal rights activists are to blame for empty chairs at dog shows? I think this belongs in food for thought... Actually, since it's aimed at breeders, exhibitors, the clubs and others who understand what's at stake, it belongs right here. And quite possibly in the OET. I've already brought it to our editor's attention. Kristine Fair enough, I really don't mind either way. I just think it's important to point out that this is one perspective, with several oppositions. |
Lil Walty wrote: Fair enough, I really don't mind either way. I just think it's important to point out that this is one perspective, with several oppositions.
This is not a perspective. This is a call to arms, figuratively speaking, to fight for the right to even own dogs. Just this morning the message came out through my agility club's list that a local community is close to enacting BSL, specifically banning "pitbulls". Now, I don't own "pitbulls". But I have friends who do. Many of them are agility, obedience and therapy dogs. They're nice dogs. They deserve to live. Two minutes later I'd posted an appeal to the WI OES club membership to take action while others were doing the same with regards to their respective breed and training clubs. The dog community is finally waking up and getting off our collective rear and fighting for our dogs' right to exist. The Mayor assures us that as it stands it he will either veto it or it will go back to committee. That doesn't mean it won't resurface. Every day in different communities they are enacting increasingly restrictive pet limits, MSN, BSL etc etc despite repeated evidence of the legislation's failure to address the actual problem, real or perceived, but never mind common sense or science. Who are they? It's like anything else - you follow the money, you find the agenda. I'm sorry if the political implications or affiliations offend you, but ultimately this isn't about politics, but dogs. Personally, I'm rather fond of them. Enjoy their company. A lot. Would like to continue to do so.  I suppose that's a perspective now that I think about it. And merely one perspective with multiple opposing perspectives at that. So there you go, you're absolutely right! 
Kristine |
Lil Walty wrote: I just think it's important to point out that this is one perspective, with several oppositions.
I have an academic question, observing the cup of tea rule here. Since Peta opposses your right to own a dog, and they do, why do you support them? doesn't sound like a perspective to me - but an agenda. |
| It is an interesting discussion. PETA is a red herring. One doesn't need to look for outside deterrents, when there are so many within. Far more significant are the other points mentioned. |
kerry wrote: Lil Walty wrote: I just think it's important to point out that this is one perspective, with several oppositions. I have an academic question, observing the cup of tea rule here. Since Peta opposses your right to own a dog, and they do, why do you support them? doesn't sound like a perspective to me - but an agenda. I don't support PETA, I have never supported PETA and am not sure why you think I do. Just because I am an animal rights activist does not mean my beliefs can be lumped in with every animal rights organization or every other activist. Animal rights thinkers have varied beliefs and goals. Kristine- We definitely agree about BSL, I am extremely opposed to it. But I also support MSP. The reason I support one restriction and oppose the other is because I have no problem with restrictions so long as they benefit the animals. Is it a safe assumption to say that AKC/dog club folks oppose restrictions because it infringes on their rights as owners and not the rights of the animals? |
| Warming up my teakettle... |
Lil Walty wrote: Is it a safe assumption to say that AKC/dog club folks oppose restrictions because it infringes on their rights as owners and not the rights of the animals?
Well, it is safe to say I don't know what MSP is. Or are you refering to MSN - mandatory spay/neuter? If so I have to say that I, not the AKC, not "dog folks", support my right to make sound medical decisions for my dogs in conjunction with my vet. And so far neither she nor I have found a shred of scientific evidence that suggests my dogs' individual rights would better be served by being mandated that they be desexed by no later than four months or even six months old. To the contrary, research suggests that they are at much higher risk for all kinds of health and behavioral problems. Or perhaps my dogs' "rights" only matter when it's convenient?
Interesting how that works, isn't it? 
And I still hate tea. Ack. Pour me a brandy, please. Oh, wait, off to class. Hold the brandy. I have a hard enough time walking in a straight line sober. Any day now I expect my dogs to have the right to sue me for handler incompetence. I don't need Sybil giving me breathalyzers before we run. Rolling her eyes and making rude paw gestures in my direction when she makes eye contact with her buds ringside is bad enough 
Kristine |
| I meant MSN, it's been a long day!
And I didn't mean to say that all breed club folks/breeders/etc. have the same perspective as the AKC, although I see how it came off like that. I was honestly asking whether the worry is that your rights will be taken away as an owner, or whether there is a violation of a right of the animal. That article had a lot about the rights of the owner. Also I don't think it's convenient to be for mandatory spay/neuter. And I also think now would be a good time to make a distinction between how different animal rights activists thinks. Maybe it would be helpful to distinguish between those for animal welfare and those for animal rights. An animal welfarist might compromise the reproductive integrity of an animal in order to reduce population sizes and in turn reduce the number of animals euthanized every year. Which would mean that it's not just people who think we shouldn't have companion animals that are for mandatory spay neuter.... but it's also people that love dogs but are just frustrated with the amount of animals being euthanized every year. |
| Well put Kristine. If everyone would try to be encouraging to new people in the sport, instead of spreading vicious rumors, the numbers might improve. I went to a dog show recently and spoke to as many OES people as I could. Some left me with a very negative impression, and one person especially made me feel like I would be welcome in the sport. I would like to see more of the latter. I am also not a spring chicken, but have always thought it would be fun to show a dog. It may still happen, but I do think positive experiences at shows and within the breed clubs themselves could also help bolster the numbers. If you don't band together, the "bad" animal rights groups will detroy the dog show. |
| Wendy - you are right.
The nursing profession has a similar "cannibalistic" reputation as well..... 
Last night was our local OES club meeting. Even though I was beat, have had an entirely crappy week, and needed to get up at 5am, I drove the 1.5 hr each way just for the company and support. I wasn't disappointed - we had such a good meeting and had a great time. I needed my dog friends and could count on them to understand - and it worked. The next generation - I am not the youngest, but LeAnne mostly is - and Breanna and Will definitely are. I grew up at dog events, and so did my kids. I feel we are better people for the experience. I hope Bre and Will have the same opportunity. |
Lil Walty wrote: I meant MSN, it's been a long day!
And I didn't mean to say that all breed club folks/breeders/etc. have the same perspective as the AKC, although I see how it came off like that. I was honestly asking whether the worry is that your rights will be taken away as an owner, or whether there is a violation of a right of the animal. That article had a lot about the rights of the owner. Also I don't think it's convenient to be for mandatory spay/neuter. And I also think now would be a good time to make a distinction between how different animal rights activists thinks. Maybe it would be helpful to distinguish between those for animal welfare and those for animal rights. An animal welfarist might compromise the reproductive integrity of an animal in order to reduce population sizes and in turn reduce the number of animals euthanized every year. Which would mean that it's not just people who think we shouldn't have companion animals that are for mandatory spay neuter.... but it's also people that love dogs but are just frustrated with the amount of animals being euthanized every year. Thank you for the clarification. Mandatory Spay/ Neuter sounds like a great answer doesn't it? Actually sounds like an easy fix (pun not intended). that makes me wonder - easy answers usually aren't as promising as they sound. so lets see if it will indeed make things better or worse. First off we need to know how many animals are being euthanized, and how many of those are dogs. Then we would need to know where the dogs come from - are they imports, are they old and infirm, are they vicious (lets assume some dogs are vicious - just like some people are evil) do they come from back yard breeders, do they come from commercial breeders? after we have all those facts, we would have to know as well what the penalties are for not complying with the MSN and who would still be breeding. my guess is the only people not breeding under this scenario are the actually breed people. pets are too big of an industry to shut down the commercial breeders, and the careless owner will still be a careless owner (just like careless parents will still let their kids run into other peoples yards and get scratched up - but that is another thread), so what it comes down to is that teh actual breed people - those who want to improve the breed will not breed, the careless BYB will still breed and the commercial breeder will breed more inferior dogs (by the way most of these are better known as puppy mills). but I am jumping ahead. First I need to get those numbers together - while Ron boils tea which is actually my drink of choice. But let me throw this out - my husband has recently gotten interested in working with our local shelter. It is a two rural county shelter in NY. they have 38 spaces for dogs and don't kill adoptable dogs (I assume they euthanize infirm and non placeable dogs but I don't know for a fact). They also have 80 slots for cats and want to double that (they need to add two more dog slots). let's talk feral cats....... |
| Any governement, or even club or group with seemingly good intentions, should never be allowed free reign to take control of things they are not thoroughly educated on and simply do not fully understand.
Do any of them even understand the damage early spay/neuter causes? Do they think ahead to the fact that if there are no reputable breeders byb's, mills, and commercial breeders will jump in to fill the void and provide unhealthy, totally unregulated breeding of pets to supply the demand. Re showing, agility, obedience etc as a sport with dwindling interest... I think it honestly has more to do with the attitudes of those currently involved than it does with animal rights activists changing attitudes of pet owners. |
Willowsprite wrote: Re showing, agility, obedience etc as a sport with dwindling interest... I think it honestly has more to do with the attitudes of those currently involved than it does with animal rights activists changing attitudes of pet owners.
I wonder if its more the attitude of those of us trying to get started who don't expect to "pay dues"? I wonder if the (now) old timers took the mean spiritedness more readily in hand when they were starting out and we all have no patience for it? See my head is a scary place, it really isn't convenient to see all sides of the issue it can make you dizzy  |
Willowsprite wrote: Re showing, agility, obedience etc as a sport with dwindling interest... I think it honestly has more to do with the attitudes of those currently involved than it does with animal rights activists changing attitudes of pet owners.
I wonder if its more the attitude of those of us trying to get started who don't expect to "pay dues"? I wonder if the (now) old timers took the mean spiritedness more readily in hand when they were starting out and we all have no patience for it? See my head is a scary place, it really isn't convenient to see all sides of the issue it can make you dizzy |
| I hate politics in any form...and if I make friends with one breeder only to find other people being unkind about my friend, saying things I know to be untrue, it is a HUGE turnoff to me. I could never be encouraged to join in a sport where that is a common behavior. I hope this type of thing stops and breeders band together and support each other for the good of the breed, and check their jealousies at the door.
Our breed has enough challenges to it's popularity with grooming and size as it is. It is a much smaller job to be supportive of each other and band together as a family against the groups who want to take away your rights to show and keep dogs. I do worry I will lose the option the live with sheepies someday. It would be a good place to start fixing things...letting your love of the breed and sport spill over to create a bond with those who have the same interests. |
| I didn't know that animals had any rights.
Can someone point them out to me? I mean I know that humans have had restrictions put on them and their actions towards animals to be "humane" (not "animane"), but I can't think of any animal rights off the top of my head. |
Quote: I wonder if the (now) old timers took the mean spiritedness more readily in hand when they were starting out and we all have no patience for it?
I'm sure that's totally a factor, but at the same time... from what I experienced, there are several old timers who think they're the ....bomb, and that everyone else is in some way ruining the breed/standard or just unethical. So much so that they'll tell you that they're ready and willing to help you but move on back if your dog does better than theirs. Almost to the point that they have to get their dog ready in a different location b/c they're so dang snobby. I couldn't believe how many people slammed one another to a point that it would make someone looking to show ...completely turned off and feeling helpless because you can't get a "good dog." ...at least not in the eyes of anyone but the kennel you got it from. Total turn off to those who may have had interest. While I did gather you have to have a backbone, it would make me not want to show up at all. |
Ron wrote: I didn't know that animals had any rights.
Can someone point them out to me? I mean I know that humans have had restrictions put on them and their actions towards animals to be "humane" (not "animane"), but I can't think of any animal rights off the top of my head. *smirk* +1 |
| ... and then, there is the "judging".... We can dissect the issues one by one in great detail, but will that put more butts in the seats?
There are many issues with every sport. Competitiveness rears its ugly head in thousands of ways. The only way to remain above the fray, is to not participate in the ruckus - like water off a duck's back, let the comments that bug you go in one ear and out the other. Or avoid spending time with those you feel are prone to petty behavior. If this conversation is about how to "grow" the sport (conformation, agility, obedience, etc.) then the only answer is outreach. I have to say that I am being helped by several people with decades of years in the breed. And they do everything to make me feel included and help me understand the many nuances. Those people are focused on the future of the breed. And they are doing one of the many things they can to make sure the sport continues. As for the Juniors program, I see quite a few kids participating. But what I think is interesting is that rarely does a young person win when showing against veterans - even when the younger one has great skill and experience. Add one professional handler to the mix and there is no chance. But hey, this is just a quick read. I have only been focused on this for six months. At work, however, I do have a bit more experience. We know that outreach is one of the essential elements to affecting change in every community.
Anyone going to Long Beach this weekend? |
QuailTrail wrote: Ron wrote: I didn't know that animals had any rights. Can someone point them out to me? *smirk* Actually, that's a legitimate question and we happen to have someone with an animal right's perspective combined with a law degree on the forum who should be in a perfect position to explain what is meant by presuming an animal has "rights". Generally when we speak of rights we mean legal rights. Both Spain and Switzerland have taken steps towards granting certain animals "rights", the Spaniards esp. in regards to the Great Apes. Based on their initatives it's clear that though there may be a "philosophy" of rights, there is no clear-cut legal definition and animal rights activists disagree even among themselves, not only in terms of definitions, but also in terms of the speed of social change and how to achieve it (an all-or-nothing or an incremental approach; promote peaceful social change or terrorist tactics?) What we do know is that the central theme appears to hinge on property and ownership. This is why you see the term animal "guardian" slipping into our language. Though not a legal term vis-a-vis animals, the push for guardianship is the first step (if you're an incrementalist) towards abolishing animal ownership and liberating "non-human" animals from our use and enslavement. If you look at an interview with law professor & outspoken animal rights proponent Gary Francione, in an interview with Friends of Animals in '02 regarding the in his opinion dismal state of animal rights in the US (not radical enough), he has the following to say which might shed some light on the question: FoA: Do you maintain that the animal rights position means that animals should have all of the same rights as do humans? Gary Francione: No. I argue that all sentient beings should have one right: the right not to be treated as our property—the right not to be valued exclusively as means to human ends. In my newest book, Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?, I maintain that if we do not accord animals this one right, then, despite what we say about how seriously we take animal interests, we will necessarily treat animals as nothing more than chattel property. And that is precisely what happens now: We all say that we take animal interests seriously, but in reality, our society treats animals in much the same way that it treats any other form of property. If, however, we did accord animals this one right not to be treated as property, we would be committed to abolishing and not merely regulating animal exploitation because our uses of animals for food, experiments, product testing, entertainment, and clothing all assume that animals are nothing but property. If we accepted that animals have the right not to be treated as our property, we would stop—completely—bringing domestic animals into existence. I am not interested in whether a cow should be able to bring a lawsuit against a farmer; I am interested in why we have the cow in the first place. That should be an interesting starting point at least. Kristine |
if we are all equals and animals aren't given to the dominion of man (if I remember my early training  ) then my guys owe me a few years rent and support |
QuailTrail wrote: Anyone going to Long Beach this weekend? what's in long beach this weekend? I might have to get my parents to go... |
QuailTrail wrote: Anyone going to Long Beach this weekend?
I wish! Agility and obedience invitationals!! This year the OES invitees are: Agility CH Dreamtymes Dandi Dunkin Dame CD RN PT MX MXJ XF (owner/breeder/handler: Barb Diaz) Obedience: no OES qualifiers My aim is to get Sybil qualified for agility eventually. Belle would have been a year or two had the invitational existed back then. Barely!
I kind of doubt Barb will go this year since she's on the East Coast, and I know I won't attend with a dog as long as it's in Long Beach, but it sounds like a lot of fun and it is an honor. Congratulations to Barb! As for those of you who are able to go, enjoy!
And try to catch some obedience and agility if you can, even if there are no OES there. And, of course, enjoy the fluffy entry and say hi to Sybil's uncle. Kristine |
barney1 wrote: QuailTrail wrote: Anyone going to Long Beach this weekend? what's in long beach this weekend? I might have to get my parents to go... http://www.akc.org/invitational/2008/in ... 2008277101 |
Ron wrote: I didn't know that animals had any rights.
Can someone point them out to me? I mean I know that humans have had restrictions put on them and their actions towards animals to be "humane" (not "animane"), but I can't think of any animal rights off the top of my head. I think generally the term refers to metaphysical rights or ideals, not legal rights. Kristine did a great job describing the main issue; whether animals are (or should be) treated as property or not. The law is clearly changing, and judicial decisions and new state laws are changing the status of animals to something beyond just property. I don't think that this has created a right in an animal (an animal can't bring a case on it's own behalf, so clearly there have been no rights created), but it has changed our status from merely an "owner" to more of a "guardian". |
Lil Walty wrote: [The law is clearly changing, and judicial decisions and new state laws are changing the status of animals to something beyond just property. I don't think that this has created a right in an animal (an animal can't bring a case on it's own behalf, so clearly there have been no rights created), but it has changed our status from merely an "owner" to more of a "guardian".
Excellent point. Though do keep in mind that the slide towards guardianship would indeed have far reaching legal implications. The AVMA opposes it. Why? Though there are implications beyond our rights as owners to seek the appropriate health care for our animals, here is what the Animal Health Institute has to say on the matter: http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issu ... an_ahi.asp Pet owner or guardian? Animal Health Institute November 2005 Pets play an important role in our lives, and it is common to refer to them as "companion" animals. Increasingly, in fact, Americans think of pets as members of their extended family. But should pets be treated legally as if they were people? That is what is behind an effort to legally change the way we refer to our relationship with our pets. While proponents of this effort claim that new laws would raise the status of animals, such legislation would more likely harm pets by hurting people's ability to care for their pets properly. Changes to the law, like the one proposed currently in a number of states and municipalities, would be likely to affect pets, their owners and their health care providers adversely in several ways: They would create legal confusion about the relationship between owners and animals They could limit—or even eliminate—pet owners' ability to freely choose an appropriate treatment for a pet. They could eliminate pet owners' freedom of choice in decisions about the most appropriate way to care for your pet. They could subject decisions about petcare to outside intervention by neighbors, other third parties and government authorities. To protect against these adverse outcomes to well-intentioned legislation, pet owners should carefully consider the possible ramifications of any legislative or regulatory proposal that comes before local and state lawmakers to change the way we refer to the relationship between humans and their pets. Are you a pet owner or guardian? Recently, a number of organizations have begun campaigning to change the legal status of animals by replacing the term "pet owner" with the term "guardian." The term "owner" places responsibility on people to care for their animals, while the term "guardian" shares the decision-making rights and responsibilities with courts and other third-parties who might be able to claim-under new laws-an interest on the animal's behalf. While proponents of guardianship claim it is a harmless recognition of the growing status of pets, guardianship would, in fact, represent a dramatic and negative change in the legal standing of animals. There is no doubt that inserting the word "guardian" in place of "owner" in describing the relationship between a human and a pet would be regarded by courts as a meaningful change. Courts would then fall back on the long-established use of the word "guardian," which is typically applied to minors. Guardianship, in legal terms, is a complex fiduciary relationship subject to court approval. It is not a status that is sought to upgrade the status or standing of an individual, but one that is used as a fallback when no natural guardian – or parent – is present. Historically, the law has classified pets as a kind of property. This status has enabled owners to protect their pets in the same way they can protect other property from undue restrictions and seizure. Because there are a number of kinds of property, however, pets enjoy a special legal status. The law recognizes, for example, that pets are not the same kind of property as desks or cars. Rather, each state in the U.S. has laws requiring humane care of pets and criminalizing cruelty to animals. Other laws set standards for the care and handling of companion animals involved in commerce. So while pets do not have the same legal status as people, they are treated as a special type of property, a kind of property that requires humane treatment by pet owners and protects pets from irresponsible neglect and other forms of abuse by pet owners. In contrast, under U.S. law, guardians are not owners; they are merely caretakers. Guardian status could reduce the petcare choices available to the caretakers. Legally, for example, human guardians must always act in the best interest of the "ward." What is "best" is determined by anyone with a self-proclaimed interest or expertise and who is willing to use the court system to force a caretaker to make the "best" decision. So consider an elderly dog that has developed a severely arthritic hip. Currently, an owner has several treatment options available, from hip replacement surgery to less invasive and less costly alternatives. While some owners may indeed opt for the hip replacement surgery, other owners may choose less expensive options. However, a "guardian" would be required to act in the "best" interest of the animal; and if a neighbor, the local humane society or a local college professor believes that hip replacement surgery is in the best interest of the animal, the dog's caretaker could be forced to accept that option – affordable or not. Another example: a pet owner may decide the family's dog should be confined to a kennel rather than roaming freely throughout the entire backyard. Under current laws, pet owners have the freedom to make that choice. But a guardian could risk being taken to court by a local animal rights group or by family members who disagree and want the dog to roam the yard freely – under penalty of the law. Changing the way the law treats pets and the people who care for them from ownership to guardianship raises many questions about how pets will be cared for in the future. If pet owners today become, under new legislation, pet guardians, a number of things could happen: Animal rights organizations or meddling neighbors could petition courts for custody of your pet if they don't approve of the way you care for your pet The treatment options you and your veterinarian decide on could be challenged by the local animal rights organization or other self-appointed experts. It could be illegal to spay or neuter a pet because it deprives them of their "reproductive rights." Veterinarians and pet guardians could be sued for providing what another individual might regard as inadequate care. Guardianship laws also could have negative consequences for animal care and control organizations, which already have limited resources. They could be forced to deal with changes in euthanasia policies, increased responsibility for investigating animal abuse charges or responsibility for monitoring guardians. It's important to understand that the attempt to replace ownership with guardianship is part of a broader agenda sought primarily by some animal rights activists. For them, this change is the first step toward placing animals on the same legal plane as people, and they see that step as more important than the fact that such changes will significantly reduce the rights and choices currently available to pet owners to provide for and protect their pets. Pets are important and valued companions. That's why laws that protect pets from abuse are already on the books. Changing the laws to refer to pets in the same way we refer to family will not provide further protection to pets, but rather will limit the ability of pet owners to make decisions about the care and treatment of their pet. Reproduced by courtesy of the Animal Health Institute (AHI) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Animal Health Institute (AHI) Contact: Dr. Kent McClure, General Counsel, Animal Health Institute, kmcclure@ahi.org What they don't spell out in this document are the veterinary malpractice implications that would most likely come into play. How many of us could afford veterinary care for our animals if it was priced similar to human medicine? Thought to ponder.
Kristine |
| I think that was an interesting take on use of the word guardian. I don't think it's as simple as that though. It would take a lot more than flippant use of the word guardian for the courts to equate dogs with children. Additionally, parents are not treated as guardians, guardianship is a special legal term... I don't think I've ever seen the best interest of the child as the test for whether a parent should have to let their child run around in the backyard as opposed to being confined to their room
I think a point that seems to be missing from a lot of these discussions is the emotional aspect. We have a problem in the US with regards to our companion animals, and honestly I think part of it is that we don't have enough people interested in what their animal is bred for/bree standards. But before we tackle that problem I think we need to tackle: overpopulation, the very very high euthanasia rates (for space not illness/behavior), the ads on craigslist of people giving away their pets, puppy mills, hoarding, and abuse. If anyone has a way to tackle these problems without regulating through laws or changing the status of animals from property to something else, I would love to hear them. (And the only thing I'll say about veterinary malpractice is that I think it's an incredibly complicated issue. I've seen several presentations on it ranging from it being great and very affordable to it being the worst idea ever that will put vets out of business.) |
| do we have inordinately high euthanasia rates for dogs - not imported dogs or cats?
I found this in a post from ahile back that indicates that things are improving greatly. http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/redefining.htm its not based on a methodology that assumes the rate of euthanasia from polulation statistics. I doubt that anything we do anywhere would be better than a decrease of 70%. |
Lil Walty wrote: I think that was an interesting take on use of the word guardian. I don't think it's as simple as that though. It would take a lot more than flippant use of the word guardian for the courts to equate dogs with children.
What would it take then? Because this terms is being infiltrated into local ordinances, so it would be helpful to understand the legal implications more fully. Clearly, since the purpose is legal, not emotional, the change of terms must have legal and not emotional ramifications. Though I don't always agree with him 100% on all issues (though I do love his books ), I'll let Jon Katz speak to the suggestion that merely changing terminology for fuzzy emotional reasons does not change the way we view or treat our pets for better or worse, in part because I think he gets to the very core of what's wrong with well-meaning pet owners today, no matter what we call ourselves - our unwillingness to respect dogs for what they are: dogs. Not furry humans.
Jill/Butterscotch has a wonderful saying to that effect as part of her signature that's worth framing. Guarding the Guard Dogs? http://www.slate.com/id/2096577/ Are you a dog "owner"—or a dog "guardian"? By Jon Katz Last month, In Defense of Animals, a California-based animal rights organization, sent me some materials about its "Guardian Campaign." A polite letter complimented me on my most recent book, then requested that I use the term "guardian" rather than "owner" in future writings about dogs. The benefits of relating to animals as guardians rather than as owners would be "far reaching," wrote IDA president Dr. Elliot Katz (who's no relation). Changing how we speak would help change how we act. In a world where dogs are protected rather than owned, Katz argued, it would be easier to crack down on animal abuse, end the puppy-mill trade, and stop the killing of animals at shelters. As a dog lover, owner of a rescue dog, and member of two rescue groups, I'm not convinced there will be concrete benefits from this metaphoric, even Orwellian revolution. How exactly will these semantic changes improve the lot of animals? Why can't we shut down puppy mills, end some cruel animal research, save the lives of dogs and cats in shelters, prosecute animal abuse, and still call ourselves "owners"? IDA's letter proudly pointed out that San Francisco; West Hollywood; Berkeley, Calif.; Boulder, Colo.; Amherst, Mass., and the state of Rhode Island have already enacted ordinances changing owners into guardians. (Some of those jurisdictions have also embraced the animal-rights movement's other language crusade, changing "pets" into "companion animals.") Although IDA cited these cities and state as evidence that the notion of "guardian" is spreading, to me it suggests the opposite: Its successes are confined to left-wing pockets. I'll be impressed when Kansas City takes up the idea. Social movements are only as effective as their ability to win popular support. I'm currently living in rural upstate New York, and I showed the IDA packet to Sandra, a sheep farmer who lives down the road with her female partner. She was shocked. "I love my Rottweiler," Sandra told me. "But I'd love to marry my partner and I can't. I have to say I'm a bit uncomfortable with dogs having more rights than I do. Me first." Sandra had just filed legal papers to have her partner declared her legal guardian in the event of serious illness. She said she was not about to do the same for her dog. I reminded Sandra that animal rights don't really come at the expense of human rights—there's no reason both species can't have some protection. But her reservations are important. Easing animal suffering is inarguably worthwhile; turning animals into a kind of human is another matter. And such a transformation seems the goal of some animal activists. My IDA packet contained a testimonial from a Michael Mountain of the Best Friends Animal Sanctuary. "People of other genders, races and even age groups were once treated as property in this country," Mountain wrote. "Now, it is time for 'people' of other species to be accorded the same simple dignity of being recognized, not as someone else's property but as beings in their own right." Mountain couldn't have made the point more dramatically—or offensively. I don't care to jump in with a moral value system that equates my beloved border collies with human slaves. Nothing about this comparison helps animals. It distorts their true natures and diminishes ours. The guardian campaign is a vivid example of the growing tendency to blur the boundaries between us and our pets. Many Americans have already stopped seeing their dogs and cats as animals. They're family members, emotional support systems, metaphors for issues from our own pasts, aids for healing and growth, children with fur. Seeing them the way we see ourselves—as having human thoughts and needs, human rights—is another kind of abuse and exploitation. It is cruel to crate a child, but it's often helpful and soothing to crate a dog. No human would want to spend five minutes in a kennel, yet good kennels, much maligned by deeply attached pet owners, are often the safest and best places to leave dogs when we leave home. Seeing dogs as piteous, deprived, abused, and needy can lead us to treat them unwisely. Vets cite overfeeding and the resultant epidemic obesity as a major killer of dogs and cats in America. Yet I can't count how many times I've heard somebody say, "I feed him because I just can't bear to starve him." Or "I just can't resist when he begs for food. He's so cute." Any vet or animal nutritionist would tell these people that they're doing as much harm to their cute little beggars by overfeeding them as they would by kicking them. People who see their dogs as humanlike often struggle to train them properly, especially if they believe they were abused or mistreated. Owners sometimes think their dogs have already suffered so much that they couldn't possibly inflict any more criticism. Yet it's that very firm, effective training that would make those dogs happier and more secure. And what about the growing number of owners who find neutering cruel or unbearable, because they would find it so? Refusing to neuter may put their own pet or someone else's in danger—causing aggression, running away, and unwanted litters. Or the pet owners who make their dogs hyper by believing they need to "play" continuously, like overprogrammed boomer children? They drag them to unruly play groups, toss Frisbees and balls night and day, haul them to an endless round of organized activities—but fail to teach them how to be calm. The humanlike view of dogs affects the decision about when to euthanize a sick or elderly pet. I recently attended two veterinary conventions where scores of vets told me their biggest recent problem is people who see their pets as so human that they simply cannot end their lives or suffering, no matter the cost or the pain. There is no evidence that dogs have the kind of complex emotional lives and value systems that we do. It's one reason why we love them so much, in fact. They are neither "good" nor "bad." They don't hold grudges, act in petty ways, or seek revenge. They read our moods, but not our minds. If they did, we'd start loving them as we love other humans—which could mean a lot less than we love them now. Dogs are not "people" of another species. They are another species. To train and care for them properly, to show them how to live in our complex world, requires first and foremost that we understand that. I owe my dogs much—more than I can say—but they are not my "companions"—as if we voluntarily chose to hang out together but none of us has authority over the others. I bought and/or acquired them. I own them. I am profoundly responsible for their care and well being. Guardianship, a word always applied to human beings, implies equality—the highest and perhaps most noble of all goals in this democratic nation. Ownership implies responsibility. Americans who own dogs need to be more responsible for them, literally and emotionally—not more equal to them. The drama of the modern dog is that he is segregated from society—from work, children, public places—and then blamed for not knowing how to live in our world. The things he wants to do—have sex, roll in gross stuff, roam freely, squabble with other dogs, chew shoes, pee on every other tree—are either illegal or frowned upon. His challenge isn't to become a free and equal person in the best traditions of our society but to learn how to live in the alien world of people. Guardianship suggests dogs have a right to live their own lives as they wish. This is impossible in our dog-unfriendly world. Ownership implies a human duty to help the dog adjust to this difficult, inhospitable place. "Dog owner" is a proud title. It suits me fine. Me too, Jon. Kristine |
| Let me just start off with...what a great post! Thank you Kristine! I have been hearing news of all of this and getting very concerned. I agree with you this is a call to arms. I meet so many people everyday who have no idea that "responsible" breeders exist and they should look to them or a rescue for their next dog and NOT the pet store.
I would also like to reassure you Kristine that I am the next generation  and I am raising ones for the next after me. It is a great sport and has great people in it. But I would like to take a moment to talk to all of the dog show "kid haters"...Not all children are out to rip on, pick at, or mess up you dogs hair!!!!  I am not saying that they don't exist!
I am so happy every time my 6 year old comes smiling to the grooming table with brush in hand ready to "help" get Chewie ready to go in the breed ring, or inform me that as soon as she can read the signs she is going to show Martha in Rally. And to see her get sad when she misses a dog show. Ahhh what a good kid I have! |
| There has been concern for many years in the show world regarding the decline in newcomers to this activity. It is especially noticable that very few young people are attending shows today. There are many reasons for this and one of them may be the animal rights organizations, they mis-use donations to advertise for their so called good causes, but unfortunately the problem is deeper and in your first post it is very well defined. We need to welcome newcomers and help them to adjust to the show world, shows can be stress and some breeders and show people tend to let this out on visitors or newcomers who would like some information regarding grooming or such. I have seen this so often at shows it is unbelievable and very disturbing, forthermore the judges also play a big part of the problem through their attitude towards unknown exibitors, lets be honest when they visit a show as a newcomer they have very little chance of winning if a top breeder is present with his/her best specimen. I have been showing for years and have gotten fed up with the situation as it is at the moment. we are losing good breeding stock through the vanity of a minority of people who have to win and they go over dead bodies to do this and the newcomers present hear the ringside discussions from the other show people present and ask themselves if it is really worth it, the outcome they leave and stop showing. I have no answer to the problem and I would welcome a significant change by all parties concerned for the sake of our breed and the breed clubs who can only survive with new members. |
lfinch wrote: ...Not all children are out to rip on, pick at, or mess up you dogs hair!!!!
I am not saying that they don't exist!Thank you for stating this! I started taking my grandchildren to some dog shows when they were young, teaching them the basic rules of grooming, handling & also about asking to pet another dog. My grandaughter, at the age of 9, beat me for WB her first time in the show ring! A couple years later I took her & my younger grandson as spectators to a larger show. I told the granadson that he had to understand that he couldn't just run up & pet any dog, he had to ask & not to be upset or disappointed if the owners said "no". He told me his sister had already explained this to him!!!! So off the 2 of them went, enjoying the different breeds & checking back in every 10 minutes. They always stayed within my eyesight. I never have a problem with kids at shows. If the parents haven't explained to them how to approach my dogs, I will do it nicely. They are never going to learn how to act if they are never exposed to the situation. It's like expecting a child to know how to behave in a 5 star restaurant when the only place they have ever sat inside & ate a meal was McDonald's! My biggest problem is parents who are too interested in other dogs or other things going on to keep any eye on thieir children & teach them at the same time. Don't drag the kids along just because you want to come to the dog show & can't find a babysitter! Bring the kids along as a learning experience for everyone. One other thing to keep in mind is that a lot of pepple who breed & show dogs never had children of their own. Unfortunatley a lot of adults judge situations like this on past experience rather than the individual child. |
Mad Dog wrote: His challenge isn't to become a free and equal person in the best traditions of our society but to learn how to live in the alien world of people.
Guardianship suggests dogs have a right to live their own lives as they wish. This is impossible in our dog-unfriendly world. Ownership implies a human duty to help the dog adjust to this difficult, inhospitable place. "Dog owner" is a proud title. It suits me fine.[/color] Me too, Jon. Kristine Me three!!! My Power Point I made had something to that effect in the Obedience Slide! |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|