Dog owners might be in for another bashing on Friday, when ultra-liberal talk show host Oprah Winfrey does a special program on “puppy mills.” Winfrey’s star reporter, Lisa Ling, went undercover in commercial breeding kennels to do an expose on the pet store trade.

Although the commercial trade in pet store puppies has nothing to do with the vast majority of dog owners and breeders, sensationalistic news coverage tars us with the same brush. To the liberal animal rights mindset, all breeders are either “puppy mills” or “backyard breeders,” and this always translates into more laws that harm only the innocent. Moreover, the hidden agenda of the animal rights movement is the ultimate elimination of animal ownership, and their strategy is to pick us off one group at a time.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance (ASDA) does not know how Winfrey and Ling will approach the topic, but we are not optimistic that it will be a fair, balanced and reasonably objective report. Based on the normal biased reporting we see about dog breeding, and Winfrey’s close personal ties with animal rights groups, we would expect them to take their cameras into a couple of “worst case” kennels, and then by inference say or imply that all kennels and breeders are bad.

Expect to take a thumping from one of the wealthiest and most powerful animal rights activists on Earth. According to a report in Women’s Day magazine, billionaire Winfrey feels that leaving a cool $30 million to her own five dogs in her will is not even slightly extravagant. Inflation, you know.

Winfrey was partners with the radical Humane Society of the United States in a movement aimed at destroying cattle ranching because of alleged food safety issues from eating beef, and they were codefendants in a lawsuit brought by the industry.

This month, Winfrey has been giving serious consideration to an invitation to appear in nude photographs sponsored by one of the most extreme animal rights groups in America, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, pop tabloids report. The nude photos would be for PETA’s “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” campaign. Winfrey’s concern reportedly is not about endorsing PETA. The tabloids report that she is worried that nude photos might offend voters and harm the presidential campaign of Barrack Obama, whom she has strongly endorsed.

On Friday, we can expect a thumping with no opportunity to defend ourselves. The Winfrey/Ling style of journalism is to exploit highly emotional topics and sensationalize them to twang the heartstrings of a predominantly middle class audience of liberals who are looking for the next “do-gooder” cause to embrace. It looks like saving the whales or feeding starving people in Somalia aren’t fashionable this year. Pity the poor whales. Pity the poor Somali refugees.

And pity the poor dog owners! A campaign against dog owners and breeders has become the latest fashionable cause for the glitz and glitter crowd of celebrities.

The question is, what are we going to do about it?

For myself, I’m just plain sick and tired of being unfairly bashed. I guess I just wasn’t raised to be a punching bag.

But, you might be asking, how can we fight back against the wealthiest and most powerful media mogul in America? How can we fight that kind of power? How can we fight someone who wills $30 million to her dogs when we’re trying to figure out how to pay last month’s electric bill?

 I think we can do it, if we get off of our butts and actually do it. There are hundreds of thousands of people who breed dogs because they love them – show dogs, performing dogs, hunting dogs, obedience dogs, field trial dogs, companion dogs and just plain dogs. In addition, there are millions of dog owners who love their animals and thank breeders for doing the fine job that they know we do in improving temperament, genetic soundness, utility, beauty and health.

If we join together in this, we can be a formidable force.

My thoughts are that a boycott of Winfrey’s advertisers would be the most effective strategy. If several hundred thousand dog owners and breeders were to contact advertisers on the Oprah show and refuse to buy any of their products, they would be forced to take notice.

Please understand that I am not talking about censoring Winfrey’s opinions. I would fight for her right to express any opinion she chooses, and also for her right to present and endorse the views of animal rights groups on her program.

However, journalistic ethics demands fairness, balance and objectivity if programming purports to be reporting the news. If Oprah wants to do a report on dog breeding, that’s fine. But the report should be fair to us and give us the opportunity to balance the views of the animal rights groups with our side of the story.

I don’t expect that Oprah will hold to the same standard of ethics that I did as a newspaper reporter. I expect that her report will be a hatchet job on dog owners and breeders. The promotional blog for Friday’s Oprah Show gives us an idea of what we can expect: http://www.oprah.com/community/thread/44908. Read it for yourself.

A boycott of advertisers just might convince Oprah to undergo an ethical reformation. Most of her advertisers won’t like the idea of losing several hundred thousand customers so that Oprah can preach sermons against dog owners and breeders.

When I worked on newspapers, there was a cynical wisecrack that my bosses sometimes told me when they didn’t like something I wrote. “There is freedom of the press in America – for anyone who owns a press.” That meant I didn’t own the press.

It takes a lot of money to own a TV show. Oprah has that kind of money, and she earned it, but it has gone to her head. Now she sneers at the rights and lives of ordinary people who made her a pop star, and that includes dog owners and breeders.

The Internet is the great equalizer. One of the beauties of the Internet is that it allows everyone to truly have the rights of free speech and free press. The Internet has become the printing press of ordinary people, and now it reaches a reported 80-percent of American households.

Television represents the past, when Oprah’s kind of money and power controlled the right of a free press. The Internet has given us our voice.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is asking all dog owners and breeders to watch the Oprah Show on Friday and form your own opinions. Then, if she does the kind of hatchet job we expect, please bombard her with emails expressing your displeasure.

Then,  we need to get organized for a campaign to reach her advertisers. In order to get ready, ASDA is asking readers of this report to email us a list of every advertiser that supports the Oprah Show. ASDA is willing to organize this campaign. Also, please let us know if you are able to help with it. Our email address is asda@csonline.net.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance works at the grassroots to defend the rights of dog owners and professionals against the very real threats of animal rights activism. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. We maintain strict independence and are supported only by the voluntary donations of our members.

While the Oprah segment may be about “puppy mills,” the laws that her friends in PETA and HSUS are proposing really are targeting dog owners and hobby breeders, with the goal of reducing and ultimately eliminating animal ownership. These same radical groups also want to eliminate hunting, ban the ownership of firearms, forcibly convert us to vegan vegetarianism and destroy American farming traditions.

“Puppy mills” are not the issue. Existing federal, state and animal cruelty laws already intensively regulate commercial kennels. You are the issue. These groups want to destroy the things that you love and believe in.

Does Oprah have a conscience? She is leaving $30 million to support five dogs that she loves and apparently believes she is doing something right by supporting animal rights groups.

But she is being suckered. She is supporting groups that believe that the only unexploited dog is a dead dog. The truth is that PETA slaughters 97-percent of the dogs that enter the organization’s “shelter” in Virginia. They would rather kill those dogs than help them find a loving home.

Please forward this posting to as many people as you can, and also cross-post it on message boards. We need to reach as many people as possible quickly.

Please, Read On:

15 December 2007

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT FOR AB1634 - CALIFORNIA’S “UN-HEALTHY” PET ACT

Recently Amber, a California Healthy Pets Act blogger new to the scene (and to California) wrote ” Bill Hemby Chairman of PetPAC has lied so many times about AB1634 California’s Healthy Pets ACT that we lost count.”  Since my curiosity was piqued, I thought I would click on the link.  What to my wondering eyes did appear but a sad-faced doggie behind bars with a message “HE NEEDS OUR HELP.”

Now, that’s a surprise.  It is a similar sad-faced doggie just like the ones “used” by the Humane Society of the United States when they are soliciting for their donation du jour.  We all know by now the woman-behind-the-man-behind-the-bill, but please add PETA and the Humane Society of the United States to the list of organizations working fast and furious behind the scenes of  California Assembly Bill 1634 to remove Fluffy and Fido from the family photo!

‘Tis the season so I read on.  New blogger (obviously drinking kool-aid from the California Healthy Pet punchbowl) writes: 

“LET’S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.”  

Imagine my disappointment when new blogger failed to accomplish her goal.  She presented “lies”.  She presented “facts”.  She did NOT present the truth!! Since I had some time on my hands between decorating the tree and wrapping presents for my dog’s extensive list of canine friends,  I thought “I” would help to set the record straight. I did have to take a break or two to pop more non-vegan cookies into the oven and slice a ham for our holiday gathering with friends this evening, but the importance of setting the record straight kept my fingers busily clicking away on the keyboard.

New blogger is most concerned with the nature of PetPAC.  Perhaps new blogger needs to delve more deeply into the nature of Social Compassion in Legislation instead, a key supporter of  AB1634. Principals are Judie Mancuso, her husband Rolf Wicklund, Jane Garrison, and her husband (the chiropractor?) Mark Garrison. I do think a few of those names are PETA-esque. I wonder if they are on Ingrid Newkirk’s and Wayne Pacelle’s Christmas card lists.  (Is Christmas a vegan holiday?)

Why does Social Compassion in Legislation want to be just a figurehead supporter asking for donations (“click to donate”)? Wouldn’t you think they would want financial contributors to know all about their good works so that those potential contributors could delve deeper into their pockets this holiday season and SEND MONEY?  If you have free time, google Social Compassion in Legislation.  You will find bubkus! [also spelled bubkes or bupkis ... means you will find "nothing at all"]

I thought I would share some further insight into the “coalition”. By the way, I have heard on numerous occasions by Ms. Mancuso that “hers” is a Republican coalition.  Do you honestly think the puppies and kitties care if you vote Democrat or Republican?

A recent press event held in Los Angeles by Lloyd Levine and “legendary” television star Bob Barker and members of the coalition informed one and all of the return of this blithering bill.  Senators have had to ask Santa for fax machines throughout the State to accommodate the ensuing piles of SUPPORT or OPPOSITION faxes soon to arrive with the New Year.

The Associated Press had another report recently (14 Dec) that I thought I would share with you: 

“PRICE WAS RIGHT, BUT THE CAR WAS WRONG, CONTESTANT SAYS”

According to a lawsuit filed this week in Los Angeles Superior Court, in June 2004, a contestant on “The Price Is Right” guessed that a sports car was worth $33,495 and left the stage thinking she had just won a new 2004 Pontiac GTO Coupe.  In her lawsuit against the game show, CBS Broadcasting, the auto dealership that provided the vehicle and the transportation company that delivered it, the contestant alleges the GTO Coupe she received was not new, as she had been promised, and had been in an accident. When she took the car, which arrived in her home state of Washington in September 2004, in for service the next year, she was told that it had suffered structural damage to the frame and front end, “but the repair work was such that an obvious effort had been made to conceal or hide the damage.” 

OOPS!

For full text of above referenced AP article, please click here:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071214-1638-ca-wrongcar.html

Okay, where was I?  Oh, I remember.  Back to setting the record straight. Let’s chat awhile about pet overpopulation.  Do you know that there is actually a SHORTAGE OF ADOPTABLE DOGS in the United States?  Let me repeat for those AB1634 “supporters” who might be reading challenged. 

There is actually a SHORTAGE OF ADOPTABLE DOGS in the United States!!  

Do you know that there is a prison program offered by the Marin Humane Society?  Oh, I see a potential problem looming.  Perhaps the California Healthy Pet “supporters” are geographically challenged and are NOT aware that the Marin Humane Society is located in CALIFORNIA!!  Perhaps the California Healthy Pet “supporters” are NOT aware that the Marin Humane Society is located in NOVATO, CALIFORNIA, only 100 miles from Santa Cruz, CA, the sacred capitol of all things right with sheltering according to Assembly Member Lloyd Levine and the coalition.

What’s that?  You don’t remember Santa Cruz being a role model to emulate?  Just this week it was announced in Santa Cruz County that their Animal Services Authority General Manager, Katherine Vos, was ousted!  Loyal shelter workers staged a sickout.  Both volunteers and employees were AFRAID TO SPEAK TO THE MEDIA … for fear of losing their jobs!  

Why is that?  What could possibly be gleaned by this change in command in Santa Cruz?  Someone wouldn’t be trying to “conceal or hide” anything, would they? In response to the article about Katherine Vos leaving Santa Cruz, I thought I would do a bit of my own homework.  Tere is some interesting information straight from the minutes of the Santa Cruz Board meetings:

Dec 2007:  It is announced that Animal Services Authority (ASA) General Manager, Katherine Vos, will leave in January 2008.  [Was it politically motivated??? ]

Let’s go back.

April 2007:  Newly appointed General Manager to the ASA, Katherine Vos, is introduced to the Board.

May 2007:  Lisa Carter, Executive Director of the SPCA, encouraged the board to endorse the California Healthy Pet Act, AB 1634.

[This is the same woman who just happened to call-in to the recent KGO radio program with Judie Mancuso.  Interesting how Lisa always gets on every radio program that Ms. Mancuso is doing.  To be fair, KGO's radio host did describe Lisa as "one of her dearest friends."]  

To continue setting the record straight, the County of Santa Cruz took over animal-control services and the bulk of sheltering in 2002 amid a FINANCIAL SCANDAL at the local SPCA.  The SPCA now serves as an advocacy and education group but does NOT handle shelters!! (see below)  

Financial scandal?  Doesn’t handle shelters? 

OOPS!

At the Board meeting in May, Ms. Carter passed out a copy of the California Healthy Pet Act and a list of sponsors and supporters.  Please note the following:

BOARD ACTION:   The Board recommended staff put this item on the next agenda for a vote with a copy of the bill and a comprehensive analysis.  [If Santa Cruz has been consistently touted as Lloyd Levine's "model," then wouldn't they jump at the chance to support the bill?  This appears odd to me.]

Annette Hogue, Watsonville Shelter Volunteer wanted to show her support for the California Healthy Pet Act, AB 1634. 

Sammy Ettenger, SPCA, explained the difference in understanding of the California Healthy Pet Act, AB 1634. 

Lynne Achterberg, Project Purr, handed out their newsletter. 

[And "still" the Board took no action to "support" the bill despitethe fact that Santa Cruz is the RECOMMENDED STATE ROLE MODEL for the California Healthy Pet Act?] 

Let’s look further.

June 2007:  BOARD ACTION:  

Take no action on the bill at this time.  Board directed General Manager to draft a letter with comments in regards to Santa Cruz ordinance verses the AB1634 bill. 

[Even though "supporters" were pushing AB1634 down the

throats of the Board members via feeding tube, the

 BOARD STILL TOOK NO ACTION!]

Sept 2007:  BOARD ACTION:  Accept and file report and directed the ASA General Manager to bring back to the board an update on efforts made to decrease the euthanasia rates at the Santa Cruz County Animal Services Authority Shelters.  

[What's this?  Santa Cruz needs to DECREASE THEIR RATE OF EUTHANASIA?  Do you think Lloyd Levine knows about this?  Do you think Lloyd Levine cares? Let's go a bit further down memory lane together, shall we?  Gotta set the record straight!]

May 2003:  On April 26, 2003 through April 28, 2003, the Santa Cruz Sentinel published an expose of the issues surrounding the Santa Cruz SPCA and how it led to the creation of the ASA.  In addition to the SPCA article of April 26^th, an article regarding the status of the ASA and it’s role in the delivery of animal services was published.  These articles have drawn considerable attention to the agency. 

OOPS!! 

An expose?  Missing funds?  Corruption?  And shelter shutdown?

Sept 2003:  FIELD SERVICES:  In late September, with a full complement of Animal Control staff on board, we will be refining our animal control dispatch services with a training day on the enhanced uses of our

Chameleon animal control data base system.

In addition to this training, our new clerk/dispatcher will be spending a day at NetCom learning some basic dispatch procedures that can assist us in our own operations.

[Hmmmm..... This couldn't be the same Chameleon animal control data base system that Ed Boks, General Manager at LA Animal Services and California Healthy Pets Act coalition member, is using, could it? Must be a coincidence.  I do recall reading on a few occasions by another well-researched blogger that Chameleon is Ed's software-of-choice for "cooking the books"! Not my choice of words but interesting nonetheless, eh?]   

Nov 2003:  Accepted a report from the General Manager. 

Animal Control and shelter activity has continued to increase over prior months.  In addition, there has been a noticeable increase in field activity such as animal biting incidents and barking dog complaints.  [What's this?  Animal biting incidents?  I didn't think this waspossible with spayed and neutered dogs according to Lloyd Levine and Judie Mancuso.  Could this possibly mean that Santa Cruz is failing in accomplishing their goal?  Santa Cruz canines nibbling on neighbors and chomping on the postman and the meter reader?]

Here is more from the Board meeting in November 2003.

The shelter has gained in traffic through the facility. The latter is reflected in the ASA’s increase in revenue generated in Humane Services, which included adoptions, reclaim fees and other shelter-related activities. Staffing has consistently presented a problem in our response to the workload created by this increase in shelter visits by the public. [It appears then that this is a "revenue generating" bill?  Is that what Levine and Mancuso mean when they say "SAVE MONEY, SAVE LIVES"?  Has Mr. Levine NOT read the part in the Santa Cruz Board meeting minutes that staffing has consistently been presented with problems with the ADDITIONALLY CREATED WORKLOAD caused by MSN?  Isn't AB1634 the cure-all feel-good bill of the future?]

The California Healthy Pets website says communities will be SAFER.  They drool on by informing that “Mandatory spaying and neutering will reduce the dangers caused by roaming stray animals, the transmission of rabies, and injuries from dog bites. Unaltered dogs are three times more likely to attack humans and other pets.”  

Since Santa Cruz field authorities state that there is a noticeable increase in field activities such as animal biting incidents WITH mandatory spay/neuter, it would appear that “mandatory” spaying and neutering is DETRIMENTAL to communities and NOT SAFER!  

OOPS!  

Must be an oversight on the California Healthy Pets website. I do hope their new blogger is reading this!

Here is a link to the recent Santa Cruz Sentinel article “Animal Shelter Workers Protest Leader’s Departure”

12 Dec 2007)

http://www.santacru zsentinel. com/story. php?storySection =Local&sid=51502

t appears the first paragraph explains things quite nicely.  Workers suspected that Katherine Vos resigned Monday “under pressure.”  The article also states that “workers declined to comment to the press on Tuesday in fear of losing their positions.”  Some shelter workers called in sick on Tuesday to protest a decision they said was “forced on them.” Vos, the second general manager to oversee shelters in Scotts Valley and Watsonville since the county agency was formed in 2002, stated “I know there’s been a lot of dissension about me leaving and this is not what I wanted.”  (The shelters house a combined 6,500 animals.)The county took over animal-control services and the bulk of sheltering in 2002, amid a FINANCIAL SCANDAL at the local SPCA.

The SPCA now serves as an advocacy and education group but does not handle shelters.

The Animal Services Authority is governed by a board of city and county administrators and law enforcement heads. Only one elected official, Sheriff Steve Robbins, serves on the board. Vos has worked in animal sheltering and enforcement for more than 25 years, and is vice president of the state Animal Control Directors Association. Before coming to Santa Cruz she worked as chief animal control officer for El Dorado County and chief animal care officer for Sacramento Animal Care Services. 

[Wouldn't you think Santa Cruz would want to keep the VP of the Animal Control Directors Association on their payroll?] 

Continuing on setting the record straight, here is a link to an article about “Taiwanese” dogs in the State of California.

http://www.cooldoghalloffame.com/rescue-dog-hall-of-fame/prison-program-turns-problem-dogs-into-pets/1377

From the San Francisco Chronicle (14 Dec). 

“Taiwan? There are dogs in shelters here from Taiwan?

Yes, there are. In some parts of the United States there is a shortage of adoptable dogs, not an overpopulation. Dogs are being imported to the U.S. from Puerto Rico to as far away as Taiwan to fill shelters here so people can adopt them. It’s currently easy to import dogs into the U.S. though, as diseases like the canine version of rabies are eliminated here, more people are worrying about the diseases that such dogs may bring with them into this country.” 

[Thanks to Cool Dog Hall of Fame!]

“PRISON PROGRAM TURNS PROBLEM DOGS INTO PETS”

Last year, Melody was just another typical mongrel from Taiwan: sharp features, pointy ears, curly tail.   [please click on above link for full text of article]

In closing, Santa Cruz MSN is a miserable failure. No “ifs”, “ands” or “buts” about it.  It failed.  Plain and simple.  

However, Lloyd Levine and Judie Mancuso are going to continue beating a dead horse.  By the way, when I asked Ms. Mancuso in October 2007 the following question,

“Judie, whose bill is this? Yours? Or Lloyd’s?”  Her reply was swift.  “Why it is MY BILL, of course!  Lloyd is busy with his Senate campaign.”  

I had no idea that Ms. Mancuso was now an elected official. I must have missed that part.  My bad.  

The Santa Cruz shelter statistics that are being utilized by the coalition are unverifiable.  Please note that when mandatory spay/neuter was first implemented in Santa Cruz (1995-1997), sky rockets were going off.  Impounds and euthanasia went through the roof.  

There is NOTHING “healthy” about AB1634.  This unfunded bill will cost the State of California MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.  

The California Healthy Pets Act will NOT save the state ANY money. It will NOT save lives.  Thousands more dogs and cats will lose their lives in shelter “death camps” needlessly throughout the state!

Let’s kick this bill to the curb and get back to what we all love …  our companion animals.  

Make 2008 the year that this legislation goes to that great big doghouse in the sky.

NOW the record has been set straight!

Happy Holidays,

Brat Zinsmaster

P.S.  Please feel free to share this “record” with your Assembly Members and Senators, with your local news media (print and radio), with your local shelters, the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker.  

Permission to cross post is encouraged!

I was at a dog show last weekend, and, not unusually, the topic of discussion among several breeders and handlers during the lunch break was responsible breeding and the idea of “bettering the breed”.  One Gordon Setter breeder contended that this idea has proven to be the undermining of the integrity of many breeding programs, and a Sheltie breeder went so far as to say it has caused the ruination of a number of breeds over the past thirty years.  An all breed handler noted that the big winning dogs of thirty years ago were not so much campaigned to their status as they were simply deserving of it, and even those defensive of the “bettering the breed” idea were in full agreement with that pronouncement. 

For those who have been active in the dog fancy for a number of years, the controversy between “bettering” and “maintaining” the breed is not new.  What IS new, or at least fairly new, is that little is heard any more from the “maintaining the breed” camp.  It seems newcomers to the fancy who have arrived within the past ten or twenty years or so are fully indoctrinated with the “bettering” theory, and are not even cognizant of  the “maintaining” side of the argument – or even of the fact that any argument exists!

“The great winning dogs of the 1970′s were not, by far, improved on.  Their outstanding qualities were lost to the breeds by a concentrated effort to produce reliable mediocrity.  This is not bettering the breed, it is bettering the chances of any and every litter producing dogs that are decent enough to win.  Such mediocre champions are being campaigned against each other to attain great show records, as though it were the number of wins, and not the quality of the dogs that is important.”

That statement was made by a judge who declined to have his name attached to it on an internet blog, and perhaps that refusal is testament in itself to the problem of the general deterioration of breed quality in show dogs.

The dog fancy, once comprised of individuals and families devoted to what every breed club’s code of ethics still defines as the promotion and preservation of the breed, has lately broadened it’s membership to include the player of the dog show sport.  In the well considered opinion of many, it is this player who has brought a whole pack of unwelcome cards to the table.  While everyone prefers to believe that the competitive nature of dog shows bodes for the end result of the best of the best rising to the top, what we wish to believe is in sad conflict with what we know to be fact.  The top winning dog in one non sporting breed, a dog that won both the national specialty and Westminster, crosses over in the front and peddles in the rear.  In one sporting breed, hocking out has become the usual mode of rear movement (NOT per the standard!) and a judge who seeks a dog with a correct rear end assembly will not be asked back for another assignment.  At one breed national last year, the winning dog was so structurally deficient that the handler refused photos to be taken except for head shots.  All of these dogs have been heavily campaigned, widely advertised, and despite their deplorable lack of conformation quality, used in breeding programs designed to “better the breed” by creating similarly unsound but politically connected “show dogs”.

Does this mean that purebred show dogs have gone to hell in a hand basket?  As the puppy millers are finding it increasingly difficult to register their mutts with the AKC,  and have thus turned to admitting the unregisterable status of their “designer dogs” with the twist of attempting to capitalize on their mongrel status by claiming it to be “superior”, the fancy may well understand the incongruity, but the public is not so perceptive.  Dog showing was never meant to be a sport, and to the conscientious breeder / fancier, it is still not.  The disgruntled group of breeders, handlers, and judges I had the privilege to converse with last weekend are not tossing in the towel and turning over the future of their breeds to the heavy campaigners and cookie cutter champion producers.  They are representative of a solid core of reputable dog people who WILL maintain and preserve the breeds. They will even finish champions, and now and again take home a big win.  They will represent their dogs both knowledgeably and honestly, placing the majority of their puppies in appreciative homes where they will do the work they were responsibly bred to do as exemplary sporting dogs, watch dogs, hunting dogs, herding dogs, and companion dogs par excellence.  They will keep puppies which best represent the breed standard – Not the current fad - for their own enjoyment of the breed, contribution to the future, and yes, appearances in the show ring.  Those appearances will be for the purpose of exhibiting their honest contribution to the maintaining of the quality of their chosen breed, and when the judges are confident enough to look hard, they will both see and select them.  Bettering the breeder, bettering the fancier, bettering the purpose of showing dogs, and bettering the education of the public who love dogs as we do is the goal of those who strive to maintain the breeds.

(Click “Comments” below and leave yours - Thanks!)

With all of this in mind, I feel it is only responsible to the cause of enlightening dog owners for the benefit of both their pets and their personal resolve, to post an email I received this morning regarding The Rabies Challenge Fund.  Please read it carefully, and then visit the web site.  Dr. Jean Dodds DVM and Dr. Ronald Schultz DVM are two of the most highly respected professionals in today’s veterinary community.  When they speak, even the American Veterinary Association listens!  Here is the post:

CANINE RABIES CHALLENGE STUDIES BEGIN !

One of the most important vaccine research studies in veterinary medicine is underway at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine in Madison.  Dr. Ronald Schultz, a leading authority on veterinary vaccines and Chair of the Department of Pathobiological Sciences, has begun concurrent 5 and 7 year challenge studies to determine the long-term duration of immunity of the canine rabies vaccine, with the goal of extending the state-mandated interval for boosters.  These will be the first long-term challenge studies on the canine rabies vaccine to be published in the United States.

 Dr. Schultz comments that: “We are all very excited to start this study that will hopefully demonstrate that rabies vaccines can provide a minimum of 7 years of immunity.”

This research is being financed by The Rabies Challenge Fund, a charitable trust founded by pet vaccine disclosure advocate Kris L. Christine of Maine, who serves as Co-Trustee with world-renowned veterinary research scientist and practicing clinician, Dr. W. Jean Dodds of Hemopet in California.  The Rabies Challenge Fund recently met its goal of $177,000 to fund the studies’ first year budget with contributions from dog owners, canine groups, trainers, veterinarians, and small businesses.  Annual budget goals of $150,000 for the studies must be met in the future.

Dr. Jean Dodds, DVM states: “This is the first time in my 43 years of involvement in veterinary issues that what started as a grass-roots effort to change an outmoded regulation affecting animals will be addressed scientifically by an acknowledged expert to benefit all canines in the future.” 

Scientific data published in 1992 by Michel Aubert and his research team demonstrated that dogs were immune to a rabies challenge 5 years after vaccination, while Dr. Schultz’s serological studies documented antibody titer counts at levels known to confer immunity to rabies 7 years post-vaccination.   This data strongly suggests that state laws requiring annual or triennial rabies boosters for dogs are redundant.  Because the rabies vaccine is the most potent of the veterinary vaccines and associated with significant adverse reactions, it should not be given more often than is necessary to maintain immunity.  Adverse reactions such autoimmune diseases affecting the thyroid, joints, blood, eyes, skin, kidney, liver, bowel and central nervous system; anaphylactic shock; aggression; seizures; epilepsy; and fibrosarcomas at injection sites are linked to rabies vaccinations.

Study co-trustee Kris Christine adds: “Because the USDA does not require vaccine manufacturers to provide long-term duration of immunity studies documenting maximum effectiveness when licensing their products, concerned dog owners have contributed the money to fund this research themselves.  We want to ensure that rabies immunization laws are based upon independent, long-term scientific data.” 

More information and regular updates on The Rabies Challenge Fund and the concurrent 5 and 7 year challenge studies it is financing can be found at the fund’s website designed by volunteer Andrea Brin at:  http://www.RabiesChallengeFund.org.

 (Click “Comments” below and leave yours - Thanks!) 

(Click “Comments” below and leave yours - Thanks!)