new PETA Anti-Breeder commercial...

anne

I have not seen this live but it's ugly. Leave it to Ingrid.

Linda Hartheimer
Legislative Liaison
Weimaraner Club of America
http://grayhart-weimaraners.gotpetloversonline.com/

Permission to Crosspost
>
>
> Take a look at PETA's new TV commercial. Friends in the East say its
> getting PRIME air time: http://www.peta.org/feat/abc/video2.asp
>
> If you want to fight back, donate to the National Animal Interest
> Alliance and the NAIA Trust (www.naiaonline.org
> <http://www.naiaonline.org>). We need an NRA-type organization to
> collect money and spend it telling the truth. NAIA has started an
> on-line Shelter Project that shows ACTUAL disposition of shelter dogs in
> each state. It's not complete yet but you can see it here:
> http://www.naiashelterproject.org/charts_map.cfm
>
> In Michigan, for example, we euthanize about 50,000 dogs a year, or
> about 2.1% of all the dogs in the state. Even if every euthanized dog
> were adoptable and adopted, we would still need about 200,000 new dogs a
> year to replace the roughly 250,000 dogs a year that die in Michigan
> (from natural causes). States like Massachusetts and California have
> done such a good job that their shelters are now adopting dogs from
> Puerto Rico, Taiwan and other third world countries.
>
> We have the truth and they have lies. They have money to put their lies
> on television. If we don't all act fast, the big lie of canine
> overpopulation will destroy us.
>
> Permission to forward.
>
> Cindy Cooke

anne · Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject:

BTW it's true, here in California, there are several organizations that are bringing in dogs from Mexico and Taiwan in order to fill rescues/shelters.

jamie8dc · Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:21 pm Post subject:

Holy crap. That's a bit harsh...

Stage4Survivor · Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject:

Uhhhh....I'm kinda slow on the uptake....what's the whole premise here?

wildlifecr13 · Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject:

glad everything is so black and white for PETA. Evil or Very Mad

krisnkaipo · Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject:

oh please!

I live in California and pulled my dog out of a shelter last year, with the assistance of the local Weim Rescue, he was slated for euthanasia. I have worked with the German Short Haired Pointer Rescue and the local Humane Society, there are so many unwanted and unclaimed dogs out there it is heartbreaking. Quote numbers and statistics all you want, but go cruise the local shelters and rescues...... Yes, they bring in dogs from other places, it is the same as helping childen in the developing world. We still have children at home that are in need of assistance. They are both worthy of our assistance and different people have attachments and agendas. It is not because California has a shortage of dogs.

While you may not agree with PETA, yes Ingrid Newkirk has an Agenda that calls for the end of pets, to imply that breeders are needed to meet the demand is reprehensible and irresponsible...if you are a responsible breeder and a true fan of a breed that has not been so manipulated as to need assistance to reproduce great. Even still you should look to breed rescues and shelters as an excellent source of purebred dogs. I love my Weim and am looking forward to the day I can adopt another purebred Weim.

I am an ardent supporter of spay and neuter programs. As should be every responsible breeder who wants to improve the breeds they love.

I would think that everyone on this site has seen what can happen to a popular breed bred irresponsibly.

jamie8dc · Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject:

I agree. But to horrify little girls so that when they get a new lab puppy for Christmas they feel like they murdered some animal is stupid. I think they should push for education that would help reduce the amount of people that buy puppies that they can't keep (the SOURCE of all these homeless animals) instead of trying to guilt trip people into adopting rescue animals.

I chose to get a puppy because I feel there is a special bond between a person and an animal that have lived with each other the entire lifespan of the animal that cannot be recreated. It's my choice and I'm not going to feel guilty about the Weim out there that I "killed" by buying a puppy.

Worst approach to this problem I've ever heard of. But if it guilt trips people into cancelling their puppy contract and rescuing a dog, that's great I guess, I love to see dogs rescued. But it's not a very informative ad and doesn't even address the root of the problem.

Just my opinions, I'm sure others will differ. I love you anyway. Very Happy

anne · Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:10 pm Post subject:

Beth · Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:47 am Post subject:

WOW! Although I like the message, I actually laughed at the commercial (that was just asinine) a situation that would never happen and was stupid to watch.
Not even posting my opinion on the matter, just had to comment on what a stupid *&*^^*&^ commercial that was!

anne · Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:11 am Post subject:

Just food for thought:
http://www.thedogpress.com/Columns/Jade/06_Backyard.Breeder.Fallacy.Rights_05.htm

The Backyard Breeder Fallacy

by Ms. Jade, TheDogPress Legislative Reporter

I own purebred dogs. Once a year or so I breed a litter from DNA profiled champion stock. For that, I will never apologize as I truly have the best interest of my chosen breed foremost in my mind. Am I an elitist? You betcha! Would I cringe if you went so far as to call me a dog Nazi? No. Serious breeders mate dogs of known background in order to reduce the chances of congenital defects and predict with greater accuracy the positive outcome of a planned litter of puppies. Therefore I probably seem like an unlikely advocate for the guy advertising puppies in the local newspaper. However, I am also a civil libertarian. And I won't apologize for that either.

Proposed, pending and contested legislation around the United States and abroad that is aimed at restricting our property rights by targeting animal reproduction has become rampant at every level of government. Forced spay and neuter, cost prohibitive licenses for unaltered dogs and breeding permits, micro chipping of our animals with their information (and ours) in government data bases, warrant-less inspection of our property, arbitrary limits on the number of animals we can responsibly care for and mandatory husbandry practices are some of the ways in which dog owners are being relieved of their civil rights.

While our agrarian forefathers did not specifically guarantee us the right to own and breed animals, they did guarantee us the right to be treated equally under the law, the right to own property, the right to be free from warrant-less search and seizure of that property, the right to due process and the right to commerce. With no respect for our Constitution, animal rights supporters are working hard to relieve us of these rights by packaging restrictive legislation in a way that is not only palatable to dog owners, even some breeders, but misleadingly leaves them with the impression that they have supported something beneficial. Far too many animal owners and welfare advocates are buying into it in one area or another.

Divide and conquer. By creating stereotypes and labels, like “puppy mill” and “backyard breeder” and attaching a stigma to those labels, the animal rights movement is trying to disgrace the act of breeding animals. And they're doing a great job. The media has been flooded with images of dogs being raised in cages, in filth, in neglect. Sad faces of shelter animals behind prison bars on “death row”. Images intended to produce an emotional response instead of an intellectual one. And don't forget the staggering statistics.

It's not a secret that animal rights mean no more domestic animals. It's in their mission statements. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle brags that “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are the creations of human selective breeding”. Allow me to translate, no animal breeding means no more animals. Period. And while the general public cannot be sold on such a radical concept, it's been surprisingly easy to sell them on the concept of ever tightening restrictions. Although united in our love of domestic dogs, slick marketing by the enemy has created infighting. Breeders both private and commercial, rescuers, shelter staff, animal control, dog show exhibitors and pet owners are cleverly being turned against one another to forward the animal rights agenda. Each believing that their point of view is the only valid one and everyone else's civil rights no longer matter.

Yes, I too personally find those images disturbing. They are the product of gross human negligence and irresponsibility. I love animals, I have been a shelter volunteer, and I believe in animal welfare but I am also a realist. Things are rarely what they appear on the surface. In order to end the animal surplus and related suffering, I want to get to the actual cause, to prevent the illness instead of treating the symptoms, so to speak.

The demand for a product (puppies, for example) is driven by the consumer. It's a simple case of supply and demand in a free market economy. Don't blame the seller for being an opportunist. It's only human nature flourishing in what is still a mostly democratic society. An uneducated consumer has every right to purchase an inferior product and suffer the consequences. Just as the seller has every right to promote the benefits their product, in order to influence the decisions of the consumer. If breed purists and elitists like me are outraged at breeders who turn a profit by selling what we consider to be an inferior product, then we must only blame ourselves for failing to educate the buyers.

Ignore the propaganda; dog breeding is not the cause of shelter overpopulation. Animals end up in shelters for a myriad of reasons. Behavior problems that result from a lack of training and proper socialization along with normal breed characteristics that the owner finds unacceptable top the list. Owner death, job transfer/move, landlord/rental restrictions, insurance discrimination, financial trouble and the inability to comply with escalating pet ownership restrictions also contribute to the problem. The system is designed to perpetuate it.

We live in a disposable society. As long as domestic animals are viewed as a short term convenience, instead of a serious long term commitment then change is unlikely. The problem is one of perspective, information and education. Pointing fingers at each other is cowardly and counterproductive.

According to a 2005 article in the HSUS magazine All Animals, 75% of the shelter population is comprised of mongrels. Now I'm no math wizard, but I can extrapolate that only 25% must therefore be purebred animals. If this is true, then random bred dogs are the real cause of shelter overpopulation, not “puppy mills”, breed enthusiasts or “backyard breeders” of purebred dogs. Yet this same HSUS article praises the mongrel as superior because of its' larger gene pool. One that may very well be polluted with unknown genetic defects. They even go so far as to market them as a “designer” product. Sort of a haute couture, one of a kind canine fashion accessory.

Now, it occurs to me that if you truly want to reduce the animal shelter population in a meaningful and dramatic way, than you should advocate for the elimination of the mongrel, through mandatory spay and neuter of random bred dogs with unknown ancestry. (See, I am a dog Nazi!) Most dog breeders know that you must have a firm grasp of the genetic past, in order to improve the genetic future of your line. Many of the minority purebred animals that end up in the local shelter may not have a known origin either, and are therefore not an ethical choice for perpetuation of their breed. The same “hybrid vigor” so highly touted in the mongrel is just as easily achieved by crossing healthy purebreds of known ancestry to create new breeds. Man has done so since the beginning of domesticated dog breeding and whatever we fancy, that breed was created by this process.

The beauty of purebred dogs is that there is something to appeal to almost anyone. I don't have to agree with your choice but I must respect your right to make it. I'm not going to advise that consumers rush out and purchase a Puggle, Labradoodle, or Cockapoo, anymore than I would suggest that everyone should select my preferred breed. (Not everyone deserves one!) Whether these designer hybrids stand the test of time or fade out with other trends is not for me to say. Freedom of choice means the freedom to make the wrong choice, and the freedom to make better choices in the future.

Am I a “backyard breeder”? Well, by technical definition I guess I am. I have also been a front yard breeder, a living room breeder and a cab of my motor home on the way to the dog show breeder. If that makes me a villain, then the animal rights lunatics and the terrorists who support their ideology win. But if you become an independent thinker, then freedom wins. We all win.

Ms. Jade

BEANSnBERRY · Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:58 am Post subject:

Wow that commercial is horrifying. ... I wonder what they are trying to accomplish by making children feel bad and cry.

I love rescues and dog adoptions and I believe in it, but that commercial is well over the line.