We Have Met the Enemy

126 – July, 2010

By Gay Dunlap

Pogo may be best remembered for the quote his creator, Walt Kelly, allowed to flow from his mouth… “We have met the enemy and he is us,” on an Earth Day poster in 1970. That was 40 years ago and, considering the lackadaisical manner in which most of us continue to spit on our environment, is as true today as it was then. Let’s not even think about the destruction going on in the waters off our southeastern coastline. Yes, Pogo was speaking of the environment.

But there are other ways in which we function as our own worst enemies, blindly sabotaging ourselves as we go merrily on our way, perhaps even hoist with our own petard, so to speak. Most of us consider PETA and HSUS the enemy, although I understand there exists a difference of opinion regarding the latter. Following introduction in Washington of the Puppy Uniform Protection Statute (PUPS Act), HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle stated, “Yesterday’s (May 25, 2010) report and legislative introduction should serve as a warning to all those who protect this dubious industry – from “kennel clubs” to pet stores to lobbying front groups who claim to care about purebred dog breeding, but in fact only care about how much money they can make peddling loads of puppies. Your days of abusing dogs for profit while snubbing the laws of this country and many states are coming to an end.” No matter how you choose to slice Pacelle’s statement, connected as we are to a “kennel club,” we, as purebred dog fanciers, are part of the animal rights group’s long-range plan to at least seriously curb our passion if not cause its total demise.

Assuming our local and parent clubs are doing their job, members are made aware of and kept up to date regarding anti-pet legislative issues in their respective areas. From there we are expected to show up at hearings, to contact our legislators, attend candidate’s meetings (especially important in election years) and to speak our minds. I hope this is the case.

But another important job falls to us as well. We must make our veterinarians aware that the government may well be on the brink of becoming involved in certain aspects of veterinary medicine that should be between vet and client. They must understand that there is more to the big picture than appearances (how a dog looks; e.g., length of tail, type of ear) and that the entire culture of the dog is being attacked. It is not just about issues of health, which we are attacking. Please have a heart-to-heart with your vet…make this a personal issue. To that end, breed and parent clubs now have a sample letter available for you to send to your vet or vets that hits on the key issues concerning the relationship between vets and pet owners and clearly delineates the difference between Animal Welfare and Animal Rights. Remember that veterinarians carry more weight than breeders with politicians.

We must be ever vigilant in combating “guardianship” language. Animal Rights groups will encourage legislation that does away with “ownership.” Once that is accomplished and we no longer actually “own” our animals, our right to keep them is endangered as well. Above all we must do all in our power to see that legislation does not become a ballot issue. Recently, the Rhode Island Senate approved a bill that outlaws “the keeping” of any dog outside in a yard for more than one-and-a-half hours without access to an outdoor housing facility. I have put quotes around “the keeping” because, folks, this implies guardianship not ownership. Pretty scary.

On January 14 of this year, Sir Patrick Bateson (Cambridge University professor and President of the Zoological Society of London) released his 65-page report, Independent Inquiry Into Dog Breeding. The report came about as a result of the extremely hard-hitting television documentary, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, which aired on the BBC in August 2008, and was aimed at breeders who ignored what was termed the “adverse effects” of inbreeding and particularly those who breed for extreme conformations. The work was funded in Britain by Dogs Trust and The Kennel Club itself but was conducted independent of these organizations. Although lengthy, I would urge all to read it objectively, refraining from negativity. You will find it on the web at http://www.dogbreedinginquiry.com.

The effects of the BBC documentary were more widespread than one might think. In November of 2008 the Swedish Kennel Club printed a little orange booklet entitled, Special Breed Specific Instructions (BSI), regarding exaggerations in pedigree dogs. In it 47 breeds have been singled out specifically with a view to improving health issues. These 47 FCI breeds are divided into three categories: those that require URGENT attention, those requiring INCREASED ATTENTION, and those requiring ATTENTION. For those interested in further information about the breeds listed and the whys and wherefores, the booklet can be found on the web as well at http://www.skk.se/pdf/funktionar/srd_eng.pdf. Since the publishing of the booklet, judges in Sweden have been brought into the picture with the request that, when judging, they consider health concerns and exaggerations to a higher degree than previously, particularly when awarding CKs. They are expected to award a 0 prize to dogs that manifest “abnormalities and defects.” Additionally, dogs with such defects are to be listed on a separate page which is then handed in at the end of one’s judging assignment.

Closer to home, are there ways in which we may be advancing the AR group’s cause, aiding and abetting it, all the while speaking of our abhorrence of their actions and agenda? How do we function at dog shows, our kennel club meetings, puppy matches, handling classes, at a restaurant having dinner with fellow fanciers? We need to watch what we say because we never know who might be listening. It might be John Q Public or someone new to the game, someone easily influenced by what we are saying. Pride in what we do, pride in every aspect of the fancy should be obvious to all who might overhear us. Do we wear negativity on our sleeve when we lose, slamming the judge, ripping another dog or another handler to shreds? Have we ever, in a fit of anger, stormed from the ring or thrown a ribbon in the trash? How does this look to the public…to a newbie? Granted we can be a volatile bunch when competing; but now more than ever it is important that we hold our negative thoughts and behavior in check.

How do we behave ringside? Let’s face it; we are all judges, in one way or another, be we breeder, exhibitor or actual judge. As such we find it difficult not to ringside critique and then share our opinions with our neighbor. Here again, we never know who might overhear us. Two incidents come to my mind, one, many years ago. I was showing my special in the Midwest at a specialty. He had the unique distinction of being the top producer in the history of my breed and still is such. He was also the number two top terrier sire of all time, behind the great Smooth Fox Terrier, Tarb the Brat, and was considered the watershed dog for my breed. He had won the Terrier Group and I had great hopes for winning Best In Show since the judge was a friend and a Terrier man, none other than Mr. Robert Graham. My dog did not win. I later learned that a competitor of mine sat ringside with Mr. Graham during the group judging and ripped my dog to shreds. A handler was standing directly behind them and heard it all. Interesting that after all these years I have forgotten neither the moment nor the disappointment. The competitor is still around and we remain friends, but still…

Fast forward to more recent times. Last spring, three judges, I being one of them, stood ringside discussing one of the exhibits in a less-than-favorable manner. Unfortunately a family member of the exhibitor was standing nearby taking photos and overheard us. Our thoughtless words resulted in hard feelings that have proved difficult to overcome. Hard lesson. We must indeed be very careful about what we say regarding every aspect of the fancy. And the same holds true for our actions. It is our responsibility to honor our sport by upholding its tenets in the finest manner, to show the world that we are indeed sportsmen of the highest caliber and that we care deeply about our charges. Think before you speak lest you, yourself, become the enemy.

As breeders we must accept responsibility for breed specific abnormalities and defects and, further, prove that we are acting consciously to correct them such that outside policing is unnecessary. If we don’t, who will? I think you know the answer. It is a sad commentary on the integrity of our sport when the Swedish Kennel Club is forced to take the action discussed earlier. Our parent clubs must take the initiative here, making certain that the seriousness of such abnormalities and defects are, first of all, understood by its breeders and then, that the importance of eradicating them from breeding programs is a priority. As a judge I recently had a dog in my group ring whose nostrils were half-covered by the roll over his nose. This is not ok, and the breeder should know this. If not, he/she must be made aware of the gravity of such an abnormality. The breeder also needs to understand that this dog must not be bred. I briefly considered saying something but he was with a handler and I decided against it; however, had I judged him in the classes I probably would have. It is unforgivable to allow such breeding practices to continue among those of us who are thought of collectively as dedicated hobby breeders. We owe allegiance to the AKC, our clubs, our breed and, most of all, to our dogs.

He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.

~Unknown

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=1280

Posted by admin on Aug 25 2010. Filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.