Distorted Media Perceptions

By Amy Fernandez

Decades of negative publicity hasn’t curtailed consumer demand for pet shop puppies. That irresistible window display remains an unfailing lure for customers. Predictably, a few moments of bonding with a cuddly pup seals the deal. Impulse buying is a key component of this business and a major reason for buyer remorse. However, retailers have gotten much smarter in recent years, generally offering some kind of health warranty and return policy. And let’s face it; many people are satisfied with puppies acquired via this risky source.

They rarely do any research unless their new acquisition develops problems. Their resulting internet search invariably yields an avalanche of warnings and horror stories from rescue groups and animal welfare charities. Rather than encouraging a practical approach, which these buyers should have had from the get-go, they immediately embrace the other extreme. And by then, they are quite receptive to exaggerated propaganda that demonizes breeders, and slap a label of social irresponsibility on everyone who chooses a purebred rather than a rescue or shelter dog. The accompanying rationale habitually portrays purebreds as unavoidably defective, and shelters as an unfailing source of healthy dogs. From our perspective, that seems laughable but we live in a rarefied world where breeders are admired and rewarded for their work.

Courtroom reality shows provide a very accurate barometer of the public’s views. And a recent episode highlights the pervasive acceptance of these illogical, unsupportable beliefs. This particular case featured a plaintiff (a lawyer) suing a pet shop owner for a refund and veterinary expenses. Several months after purchasing her pup, it was diagnosed with an untreatable neurological condition. True to form, the store’s return policy offered her no recourse by then. Nor was the condition covered by its five-year health warranty. Her primary contention was that the pup was defective merchandise because it came from a puppy mill. As proof, she produced aerial photos of the kennel where the puppy was bred. They showed a typical enormous Midwestern operation but didn’t reveal any details proving neglect or mistreatment.

Moreover, if she was concerned about how or where her pup was bred, why didn’t she check that before buying it? Research and background checking is second nature for lawyers. Contrary to her statements, her failure to do any of this was more likely due to impulse buying. She claimed that the defendant enticed her with false promises and verbal assurances about several key points not mentioned in the contract. Predictably, he denied this and she couldn’t prove it. She did, however, present statements and website information from numerous animal welfare groups, which were uniformly disparaging about the defendant and his business. Unfortunately, that didn’t include specific information about prior complaints, convictions, etc.  She didn’t have much of a case besides consumer outrage. Nonetheless, she came into court expecting sympathy, support, and a favorable verdict simply because the case involved a pet shop puppy from a commercial breeder.

To me, the episode was building up to an excellent endorsement for serious breeders. That’s the obvious choice for buyers who want quality assurances about kennel conditions, environment, health testing, etc. But that’s not the way it went down. The judge ruled in favor of the defendant, admitting that she hated to do it, and going on to caution puppy buyers, comparing it to the risks buying used cars from strangers. She emphasized that consumers have virtually no means of ensuring quality or avoiding problems when dog shopping. Essentially, she responded as if the entire world of serious dog breeding didn’t exist.

That was amazing, but it got better when the commentator recapped the verdict for viewers. Although these shows purportedly present the unbiased, American justice system in action, his legal analysis consisted of extremely biased personal views and derogatory comments about the defendant’s business. He ended by endorsing rescues and shelters as the only acceptable source for puppies. Think what you want about pet shops and commercial breeders, but from a legal standpoint this defendant was not engaged in any illegal activity, nor had he been found guilty.

Some recent news stories also illustrate the extent of mainstream acceptance for this distorted perception. In one case, a 53 year-old woman, billing herself an animal activist, staged ongoing protests outside a Manhattan pet shop. She’s legally entitled to do that, but she has no constitutional right to enter the shop and verbally and physically assault customers and employees. After a 2011 arrest, a judge issued a restraining order against her. The minute it expired she was right back at it. That wasn’t too surprising, but the tone of resulting news reports ranged from tolerance to approval. And that WAS disconcerting. Although it wasn’t overtly stated, the underlying message implies social endorsement of volatile, violent behavior in the name of activism.

Another recent news item presents the other side of this delusional situation. A 27 year-old woman sued a rescue group after being bitten on her face by a dog she was fostering for the group. The resulting injury has prevented her from earning a living as a singer and actress.

Calling the dog vicious, she claimed that the group falsely presented it as purebred and failed to provide her with accurate information about its temperament, behavior issues, genetic background, or breeding. The rescue group originally pulled the dog from a city shelter before temporarily placing it with the plaintiff. Where do accurate, detailed records figure into this chain of events?

Concepts about dog ownership are certainly changing.  Consumers seem happy to discount the relevance of dedicated breeders. However, they continue to expect the quality and predictability that comes with a well-bred dog. Better yet, they fail to see any dichotomy in their views about any of this.  It seems like this pervasive cultural bias has evolved into mass delusion.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=46482

Posted by chesliepickett on Apr 8 2014. Filed under Current Articles, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.