Rome is Burning

A few months ago, I stopped by the Empire Cat Show at Madison Square Garden. I've only attended a few cat shows so I expected everything to seem unfamiliar. The judging, placements, ribbons, classes, and point system were nearly incomprehensible to me. But one aspect of the show made me feel right at home. Throughout the venue, the CFA prominently displayed literature warning of the encroaching dangers of animal control laws and breeding bans. Yes, I felt right at home when I saw that anti-cat legislation is right in step with its canine counterpart.

This dismal topic again washed up on our beach in November. The internet was ablaze with news of draconian legislation enacted in one of the nation's favorite dog show cities, Louisville, KY. In part, it requires kennel licenses for anyone owning more than four dogs or cats, regardless of whether the animals are neutered. It prohibits any private citizen from fostering or placing stray or unwanted animals without notifying Animal Control and purchasing a kennel license. Purchasing this kennel license includes the delightful prospect of regular intrusive unannounced inspections by animal control officers.

Anti-cruelty legislation continues to be subverted by AR groups intent on foisting their ill conceived ideologies on the world. Laws originally enacted for perfectly justified reasons have become a tool to endlessly harass and intimidate pet owners. When faced with these restrictions, most people opt to give up their pets, which is the underlying goal of such legislation.

When they learned of Louisville's new dog laws, fanciers were naturally outraged. The resulting debate covered all the usual bases including lots of finger-pointing at local legislators, the Louisville KC, and AKC. In fact, in recent years AKC has stepped up to the plate, taking an active role combating local and national anti dog laws. Legislative updates can be accessed at their website www.akc.org, or through their Canine Legislation Department at doglaw@akc.org. This has obviously proven insufficient, but it is far more than any other US entity is doing to confront groups that continually jeopardize our civil rights. Every mid-sized American town has at least one dog club. There are over 5000 AKC recognized AKC dog clubs, in addition to UKC and rare breed clubs. Surprisingly, most of them have no legislative committee working on these issues at a local level.

Regardless of whether their interest is focused on conformation or performance, they have an obvious common denominator. And they won't be doing much of anything if no one has any dogs. This indifference is ironic considering that local dog clubs have done an exceptional job with rescue. In many breeds, rescue groups are literally fighting over unwanted purebreds. Obviously, dog clubs have the resources to accomplish organized effective action when motivated.

But very few of them devote time or money to combating pernicious AR legislation. Nor do they sponsor community outreach programs that could prevent dog attacks or animal abuse cases that provide ongoing fodder for AR groups. Educating dog owners would not only deactivate the shaky justification for these bizarre laws. It would provide an ideal platform to raise public awareness about the fundamental goals of groups like PETA and HSUS.

To the dog fancy, this connection is obvious, but most pet owners are completely unaware of what donations to these groups actually accomplish. Unless we get the message out there, who will? Pet owners give to these groups for perfectly laudable reasons. They love animals and want to prevent animal suffering. Contrary to implications in their fundraising literature, rescue and foster care doesn't quite describe their day to day activities.

For example, PETA collects approximately $25 million in donations each year. What do they use it for? According to the VA Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services PETA, based in Norfolk, destroyed 90% of the animals they accepted for adoption in 2005. Under funded, overcrowded municipal shelters are sometimes forced to euthanize 40% of the animals in their care, a statistic well-publicized by AR groups. The same year that PETA opted to kill all but 10% of its animals, the nearby Norfolk, VA SPCA destroyed a mere 4% of the dogs and cats surrendered to their care. Government records reveal that since 1998, PETA has destroyed 14,400 dogs and cats turned over to its headquarters for presumed placement.

Their barbaric methodology took center stage last summer. Although PETA's "official policy" is to destroy only animals deemed unadoptable, on June 15 two PETA employees were arrested after they were caught disposing of their helpless charges in a dumpster behind a grocery store in Ahoskie, NC. These dogs and cats had been killed within hours of being given to PETA for care and placement.

The dumpster contained 18 dead dogs, including seven puppies. Inside their van, which was registered to PETA, authorities found a euthanasia kit and an additional 13 dead animals, including a cat and two kittens, which a local veterinarian had surrendered to the group earlier that morning. Twenty-two of the animals had been obtained from local shelters the same day. Prior to that, more than 70 incidents of dead animals similarly disposed of had been reported in the area. Autopsies showed the animals were in good health prior to death. The PETA employees were subsequently charged with 62 felony counts of cruelty. Neither one was licensed to perform euthanasia. PETA did not explain how nor why its employees happened have large quantities of euthanasia drugs. Nor did they explain why a multi-million dollar organization resorted to theft of services to avoid the expenses associated with disposal of dead animals. The trial, originally scheduled for Nov. 13, now set for Jan. 22.

PETA's companion organization, HSUS, based in nearby Washington, DC, has been surprisingly silent on this horrific case of animal cruelty. That's ironic since they don't shy away from publicity opportunities. They recently made headlines offering an absurd $100,000 donation to stem China's catastrophic rabies epidemic. Bear in mind that this group customarily charges a $10,000 consulting fee to do a single shelter evaluation. The HSUS website states that it is "not affiliated with, nor is it a parent organization for, local humane societies, animal shelters, or animal care and control agencies." But they don't hesitate to profit from them when the opportunity arises.

HSUS was founded in 1954 as an animal welfare organization. In 1980 its agenda became refocused on animal rights. This reorganization included hiring dozens of employees from extremist AR groups including the notorious ALF member, John Goodwin, despite his extensive criminal record for promoting terrorism. Not until 2002, after the passage of strict domestic terrorist laws in response to 9/11, did HSUS begin articulating a policy of not supporting animal-rights violence, although it still maintains connections to these groups, including accepting donations from them.

Where does this money go? HSUS gave less than $150,000 to humane societies and shelters in 2002 although their annual salaries and employee benefits exceed $15 million. Only once, in 1995, did they come close to actually funding an animal shelter. That year, the DC Humane Society was almost forced to close due to budgetary cutbacks. HSUS stepped in and offered to build and operate a new DC shelter. There were significant strings attached. In exchange, HSUS requested complete ownership of three acres of city property and tax exempt status for all its holdings in DC. This would have been a substantial trade off considering that HSUS has $113 million in assets. And a good part of this war chest is earmarked for its continuing battle against pet ownership.

To further this goal, HSUS spends millions annually on legions of paid lobbyists. Two years ago, they merged with the Fund For Animals resulting in a combined annual operating budget of a staggering $95 million. Their website states that a healthy chunk of it is dedicated to "the process of researching, preparing, and prosecuting animal protection lawsuits in state and federal court." We can all sleep better knowing that lawyers and politicians are getting their fair share of rescue and foster care dollars.

AKC may be the country's largest purebred registry, but their resources are miniscule in comparison to these groups. AKC and CFA could substantially raise the stakes if they put personal agendas aside and present a united front of pet owners, breeders and exhibitors. Everyone's civil rights are threatened by these laws, although each of these groups typically perceives it as "the other guy's "problem. The majority of purebred, registered puppies and kittens go to pet homes.63% of American households own at least one dog or cat and spend in excess of $38 billion dollars per year caring for them. These billions are nicely distributed between pet food companies, drug companies, manufacturers, retailers, veterinarians, publishers, trainers, breeders, caretakers, groomers, etc. In other words, this is not the "other guy's" problem. Lawyers, politician, and employees of non-profit groups may never feel the inevitable economic repercussions of these discriminatory laws but plenty of other people will.

If breeders consistently made their buyers aware of this dire situation and clubs made their communities aware word would get around. It would decrease donations to AR groups and increase the number of informed voters in local and national elections.

Right now, dog breeders, cat breeders, pet owners - and every business sector that depends on part of that $38 billion, are in a position comparable to polar bears stranded on the melting ice cap. None of us have many options. But we are unable to put our narrow, self-interested agendas aside long enough to accomplish anything.

When I decided to write this column I wanted a good example to illustrate this self-destructive waste of resources and refusal to focus on pertinent issues. As the old saying goes "everything happens for a reason." The January issue of TNT contained a particularly virulent editorial on one of the most shopworn topics in my breed. Anyone involved in Chinese Cresteds for more than five minutes is familiar with the age old debate of how much hair should a hairless dog have. The hairless gene remains unidentified. The most comprehensive research on the subject was done 30 years ago by Roy Robinson. Countless other studies have reconfirmed his findings. But that was not the real agenda of this editorial. We have not identified the gene, but we damn well know how it operates.

Whenever a particular type becomes popular as a result of successful presentation disagreements ensue. For instance, more than a century ago, the Pomeranian club was armed and ready to take on the Kennel Club in response to a proposed ban on trimming. Scissored Poms have not died out, nor has the ongoing discussion about the subject.

Most of this so called debate is fueled by jealousy of successful exhibitors rather than sincere interest in preserving breed type. In the long run it is self defeating for a two reasons. Both breeding and judging are doomed to failure if they focus on a single trait. It is often said (especially in toy breeds) that many breeds have deteriorated because coat is given undeserved priority over type and soundness. Do we really wan to encourage this trend in our breed, a breed that is already stage-managed by fads and publicity rather than appreciation of quality.

It is certainly possible to produce a Chinese Crested with absolutely perfect hair placement. It is also possible to produce a "true" hairless dog with absolutely perfect dentition. I can personally assure you that it is possible to reliably reproduce specific colors, sizes, and a whole range of traits that remain variable in our breed (and our standard.)

I can also tell you how hard it is to consistently reproduce a combination of narrow front, long legs, with front fill, a 45 degree shoulder layback and a perfect ratio of thigh, second thigh, and hock with no indication of luxated patella or rubber hocks in a 12 inch dog. Likewise, producing a flashy, dominant demeanor for the show ring often proves at odds with this breed's traditionally soft, passive "comfort dog" temperament. Dominant or fear-based aggression often provides a passable facsimile in the ring but does not play out in a breeding program.

Body hair is just one of many traits that must be evaluated in context. Yes, it is better to do without it. But in the hierarchy of faults is it worse than rubber hocks, straight shoulders or epilepsy? An even bigger obstacle to coherent type in Chinese Cresteds is the scarcity of bloodlines (not dogs, bloodlines) capable of reproducing required traits without associated health problems. Traits of type are not transmitted by a single dog. They are the product of shrewd, selective linebreeding.

In many ways, this problem is traceable to chronic lack of direction and vision among Crested breeders and judges. Genuine experience in a breed provides the necessary perspective to understand type and put faults into context. Crested breeders come and go constantly. Most have less than a decade's involvement with this breed and often no prior experience in other breeds. They regularly debate the merits of breeding blue eyed dogs into a dark eyed breed, oversized dogs into a toy breed and mentally and physically unsound dogs simply because they happen to be big winners or "truly" hairless. And these are the breeders responsible for mentoring each new generation of AKC judges.

No, judges should not be encouraged to reward faults and breeders should not disregard or cosmetically alter them. But confusing judges, alienating breeders and hatefully condemning our breed with vulgar terminology won't help either. It offers temporary satisfaction to self-serving individuals but leaves a legacy of pessimism and factionalism in its wake. Some groups spend millions to accomplish this. But the dog fancy regularly manages to do a far better job of it on their own, without costing private interest groups one red cent!   

Either way, that atmosphere precludes any possibility of tackling the far larger problems looming over the dog world. Thus far, individual Crested breeders and the national club have focused inconceivable amounts of time and energy responding to this ridiculous editorial. Just imagine if this effort had been devoted to our real fight.