Sunday, August 10, 2008

MY LETTER WAS PUBLISHED IN THE SUN TIMES!

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to Elizabeth Ward's letter to the editor that was published on August 5th.

Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership. If the proposed ordinance were to pass, it would only serve to inflict an undue financial hardship upon responsible breeders, while doing absolutely nothing to curb the problem of dangerous dogs in the city.

In her letter, Mrs. Ward calls dog breeders "greedy" and "selfish." This is erroneous, and indicative of an overall lack of knowledge on Mrs. Ward's part as to exactly what responsible animal husbandry entails. Responsible dog breeders seldom, if ever, break even on a litter of puppies, let alone profit. OFA hip X-rays, eye certifications, and thyroid exams on breeding stock are very costly. To ask a responsible dog breeder (who indeed are the only type of breeders that will comply with the proposed ordinance) to pay an additional $500 per year on top of the massive vet bills that they already incur for said health testing, is nothing short of a slap in the face to responsible breeders everywhere. There is nothing "selfish" about dedicating one's life to preserving and improving purebred dogs. Further, shelter dogs are not the right choice for every family.

Suppose our society had a problem with too many human children being surrendered to orphanages- I hardly think that Mrs. Ward would suggest mandatory human castration as a solution, despite the fact that those two arguments are logically identical.

Mrs. Ward, as well as the City Council, needs to realize what the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association has already told them- that legislators are not qualified to make veterinary decisions on any scale, let alone such a large one. Such decisions are best made by the pet's owner and veterinarian. A mandatory spay/neuter ordinance is not only a violation of property rights, but it is a frightening governmental intrusion into the lives of it's citizens.

Sincerely,

Anthony P. Tyler

Hachikos Legacy Akita Kennels

ABORTION

My family is hardcore liberal, and they refused to hear me out on Ron Paul due to the abortion issue.

If we vote up and down on the abortion issue only, then are we really any better than the snake-handling, bible thumping, weirdo Christians who do the same exact thing?

I chose to beg my BM's to have my kid. I don't presume to tell some woman I don't know whether or not to have hers. Personally, I think the wealthy tend to be against abortion not because of any alleged moral standpoint, but because a lot of poor people have abortions, so aborting that baby means one less potential future minimum wage employee at the McDonald's that they own.

Don't get it twisted, I am pro-choice, in the sense that I don't feel we have the right to legislate OTHER people what they can/cannot do to their body. Once you cross that line, its microchips in your arm, homie. Why do you care if some person you dont know goes to hell or not? (If that is in fact what happens.)

But that doesnt change the fact that  vacuuming the head off a fetus is completely appalling. Thats why I'd personally opt against abortion.

HOWEVER- Its not within my (or your) rights to impose your/my/our/their personal beliefs upon someone else. Also, my definition of INDIVIDUAL might not be the same as yours. If the fetus is symbiotic, i.e; can't survive independent of you, then is it REALLY an INDIVIDUAL?


THE FEDERAL RESERVE

My friends and I, when we buy and sell things to each other, we use voluntary private currency-

Its pretty easy- go to any coin store, and buy a troy ounce (about 30 grams or so) of silver or gold... Right now market is about $15 for a troy ounce of silver...

Its important to remember to NOT buy a troy ounce that is ALSO US currency i.e; the liberty dollar, which is a silver coin that weighs one troy ounce, so it is worth $1, AND $15, at the same time... fucked up isn't it? Most other countries still have a precious metal standard.... If you buy the liberty dollar, the US government can recall their currency at any time and they will only compensate you the $1 not the $15...

just buy the little silver rectangle that is NOT US currency, and use it to buy something from your friend that costs $15... (or whatever the exchange rate is of silver at that time...)

In fact, whenever I have extra money, instead of putting it in a savings account, I buy gold and silver. I have a SHIT TON of these little gold and silver rectangles in my closet, one troy ounce each. (Oh, and a half dozen Akitas AND a rifle, so dont try to come steal me gold either, mofoes.)

You guys can keep your money in cash and savings accounts all you want, but when the FED raises inflation to the point where the dollar collapses, I will be laughing my ass all the way to the grocery store with my REAL money, LOL! If I like you, I might toss you a bottled water.

BY THE WAY


THIS IS WHAT MONEY LOOKED LIKE WHEN IT WAS ACTUALLY WORTH SOMETHING:

Photobucket

From Dr. Paul:

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.


THE STRUGGLE FOR THE FUTURE OF THE DOMESTIC DOG...

THE STRUGGLE FOR THE FUTURE OF THE DOMESTIC DOG
by Anthony P. Tyler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With pet-related legislation on the rise, the debate regarding the ethics of animal husbandry has reached a fever pitch. We have witnessed the rise of an Animal Rights movement which has attained a sizable political influence in this country. We have seen the emergence of a multi million dollar pet industry that has firmly entrenched itself in the American economy. As is to be expected when discussing the future of "man's best friend," emotions run high all around the issue. With each side claiming the moral high ground, will a compromise be reached that is in the best interest of the domestic dog? Only time will tell.

In the mid 1980's, the Animal Rights movement was born. Their manifesto was published in November 1987 in "Animals Agenda" magazine. The platform was relatively simple, and a few of their tenets were as follows: Promote vegetarianism from a practical standpoint, outlaw commercial trapping as well as hunting for sport, end the use of animals in laboratory tests and medical research, stop the use of animals for human amusement (rodeo, circus, etc,) end the practice of factory livestock processing, and bring about the end of the breeding of pet animals, including those of purebred pedigree.

Today, in 2008, the Animal Rights movement is alive and flourishing. Organizations such as PETA, and the HSUS have amassed massive financial "war chests" in the form of well-meaning donations from private citizens. Popular celebrities have championed their cause. Indeed, the very acronym "People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals" sounds, on the surface, quite appealing. Who doesnt want to see ethical treatment of animals? But lets scratch beneath the surface.

There have been many public outcries as of late alleging that the PETA organization has in fact been euthanizing many thousands of perfectly healthy, adoptable animals for no apparent reason. PETA has yet to refute these claims, which would seem to lend credence to the widely held opinion that the end goal of the Animal Rights movement in general, and the PETA organization in particular, is to bring about the end of companion animal ownership as it is known today, or "liberating the animals from the tyranny of human ownership," if you will. Celebrities who eat meat or wear fur are castigated, people who breed dogs as a hobby are portrayed as cruel greedy individuals exploiting their animals for a profit, and vast sums of money are thrown around backing legislation beneficial to the overall "Animal Rights" cause.

One of the fundamental arguments of the Animal Rights movement is that animals are not ours to consume. That animals, as living creatures, have the right to free will. (Opponents of this position argue that because we humans have the combination of opposable thumbs and superior cognitive skills, that we are, by default, the dominant species and thus have the right to consume animals.) One of the most noteworthy flaws in the Animal Rights argument, is that proponents of such are often in favor of the mandatory spay/neuter of domestic dogs and cats, which will be discussed at great length later in this piece. It would seemingly be difficult for someone to one the one hand, criticize the use of animals for food with the justification that the animal does not "want" to be eaten, and yet, be in favor of making an animal endure a painful castration/oveohysterectomy that the animal most certainly would not "want," if they even had the cognitive skills to comprehend such a surgery. However, this hypocrisy seems to be alive and well in the Animal Rights movement. As is the culprit behind most hot-button issues in todays society, it would seem that the Animal Rights movement seeks to impose their own ethics and view of what is right and wrong upon society in general. In and of itself, this is not a bad thing- indeed, this is how the abolitionists brought about the end of human slavery in this country.

On the other side of this equation, you have the pet industry. The fact is that pets are profitable, from the "womb to the tomb," that is, from the hundreds of dollars that some families spend purchasing a dog or cat, to the high cost of premium pet food, to the rising cost of quality veterinary care, to expensive trips to the dog groomer, boarding care/training classes, the myriad of toys and products we buy our pets, to the $400 cremation when the pet dies, make no mistake, pets have become an industry. As is the case with livestock, any time a living being becomes a profitable entity, abuse is bound to exist.

Many of us are familiar with the term "puppy mill." This term usually calls to mind a facility where dogs are kept in squalor in wire crates, treated as a source of income and nothing more, and bred over and over until they are no longer able to reproduce, and then disposed of. Commercial breeding operations have become big business. To deny the existence of these cruel, inhumane entities, would be shortsighted and inaccurate. As human beings, we should be appalled that our fellow humans are capable of such cruel treatment of another living being. The reality of puppy mills elicits emotional reactions all around, and understandably so.

Although they undeniably give a black eye to the entire pet industry, commercial kennels and puppy mills are only a portion of said industry. Pets have become an activity in and of themselves. In addition to the huge sum Americans spend annually on pet food and pet-related products, many Americans participate in organized activities with their animals such as equine dressage events, dog sports such as Agility and Flyball, 4-H shows, or just socializing with other pet owners at an off-leash dog park. But for the sake of our discussion, lets focus for a moment on dog confirmation shows. Many untold millions are spent annually on food, lodging, and gasoline as a direct result of the many confirmation shows licensed by the American Kennel Club that are going on nationwide, on any given weekend. Dog fanciers like to call this "the sport of purebred dogs."

The sport of purebred dogs, or "dog shows," and the contribution to our economy that comes alongside it, could not exist without canine animal husbandry. In order to have an animal that is competitive in said events, there must exist a "show breeder" somewhere who uses their knowledge of canine genotype, phenotype, and their years of practical experience in showing and breeding dogs, to produce a dog that represents a good example of its respective breed as defined by that breed's "breed standard."

Although there are exceptions to every rule, the endeavor of producing a good show dog is seldom a profitable one. Factor in the expenses related to showing a dog, and the factors involved in breeding a dog (health testing, stud fees, veterinary costs) and most "show breeders" are overjoyed if they break even on a litter of puppies. They do what they do out of the natural human love for competition, and presumably, a love for and desire to preserve their breed of choice. Never mind the emotional stress often involved in backing up the animals that you have bred for their entire life. This person is what we commonly refer to as a "hobby breeder."

Rare is the ethical "hobby breeder" who makes a profit on their endeavor. Even rarer still is the commercial kennel who makes arbitrary breeding decisions (as opposed to informed ones) that has success in the confirmation ring. While there are breeders who blur the line between "puppy mill" and "hobby breeder," for the most part, you have the people who are taking advantage of dogs for a profit, and you have the people who have a legitimate interest in purebred dogs and treat theirs well.

In the case of both the Animal Rights movement, and the pet industry, good exists alongside evil. Just like no rational person would be in support of the unnecessary torture of laboratory animals for non-medical research, no rational person would be in favor of keeping dogs in squalor in the name of financial gain. Thus, you have some aspects of the Animal Rights platform that are perfectly logical, and you have some aspects of the pet industry that are perfectly ethical. And then, you have the "grey areas."

On both sides of this equation, there has arisen a subculture that is bound and determined to adhere to an extremist dogma. I have seen Animal Rights advocates assassinate the character of anyone who breeds dogs, portraying them as vile, greedy individuals out to make a quick buck. On the other hand, i have seen ANTI- Animal Rights individuals so bound and determined to fight the Animal Rights cause, that they will even defend the "puppy mill" proprietor as a "legitimate business owner." As you can see, dogma comes in many forms, and in any of them, it is a dangerous entity.

Most of your "hobby breeders," that is, people who have a source of income BESIDES the dogs, people who do it for the personal glory and/or the love of their breed, are completely appalled by the plight of the dogs trapped in commercial kennels and puppy mills. If you think a member of PETA hates the proprietors of puppy mills, you should hear how a hobby breeder talks about them. However, politics makes for strange bedfellows, and lately, it seems increasingly likely that dog breeders of any scope are going to have to unite to fight to defend their right to continue breeding dogs. Ironic, considering it is the commercial breeders and the puppy mills who gave rise to the pet overpopulation crisis that has allowed the Animal Rights movement to achieve the level of support it currently enjoys, which in turn, has put the existence of the hobby breeder in such peril. However, while commercial kennels and puppy mills are, by consensus, abhorrent entities, their actions, despicable as they may be, do not impede or interfere with the activities of hobby breeders. The same cannot be said for the Animal Rights movement. So, for the moment, the hobby breeders and the commercial breeders would appear to have a common enemy.

How did this come to pass? Suffice it to say that agribusiness is an incredibly powerful, entrenched industry that is not going away any time soon. Even the almighty PETA will never amount to more than a fly in the ointment to the cattle industry. So the Animal Rights movement, being wise enough to pick their battles, has seemingly put imposing vegetarianism on all all Americans on the back burner and focused their efforts on what they perceive to be more attainable goals. Enter the concept of mandatory spay/neuter legislation.

Nationwide, the battle is raging between Animal Rights advocates and dog breeders regarding the issue of mandatory spay-neuter legislation. Such legislation recently passed in Dallas, and over a half-dozen houses in Dallas went on the market that day. This is only a glimpse of the economic damage that is in store for any municipality that adopts this legislation to the extent that it impedes the activities of dog breeders. Indeed, there exists a type of breeder known as a "backyard breeder," someone who does not license their dogs, does not provide them with suitable care, and does not make there breeding decisions based upon the principles of responsible animal husbandry. This "backyard breeder" is a small-scale version of the commercial breeder, and these backyard breeders, along with the animals that they produce, have become a social problem, contributing to pet overpopulation to the extent that legislation is being introduced to curb their activity.

In California, where an attempt to pass a statewide mandatory spay/neuter law was soundly defeated in 2007, the legislation was recently re-introduced in a deceptive form that would allow Animal Control Officers to issue a citation for having an intact dog, despite their being no language in the bill that actually criminalizes the possession of an intact dog! This is in violation of California's state constitution. In Chicago, a bill was introduced by Ald. Ed Burke that would require individuals to purchase a "breeding permit" in order to own an intact dog. This additional licensing, and the financial burden that it would impose upon the hobby breeder in Chicago is very linear to the logical flaw in gun control laws, which is that only law-abiding citizens tend to obey said laws. Your average robber is not going to purchase a concealed weapons permit for his handgun, and your average backyard breeder is not going to purchase a breeder's liscence for his dogs. So in effect, the legislation will only serve as a punitive measure upon those who DO obey the law.

Millions of animals are euthanized annually in this country in shelters nationwide. Whether or not this is necessary is the subject of fierce debate, with the city of San Francisco having recently adopted a highly successful "no-kill" strategy, the jury is still out on whether the massive euthanasia of homeless pets is the appropriate response to pet overpopulation. The en vogue strategy of the Animal Rights movement is to lay the blame for these deaths at the feet of the dog breeder, both commercial and hobby alike, by the logic that every pet sold takes a potential home away from a shelter animal. However, not enough attention is paid to the fact that a shelter dog is not the desire of, nor the suitable option for every family. Perhaps a family wants their child to participate in the sport of purebred dogs as a constructive hobby. Perhaps a family wants a dog with 3 verifiable generations of health testing behind it. Perhaps a family simply does not feel comfortable bringing a shelter dog of unknown origin and background around their child.

Despite that, the Animal Rights advocates continue to cling to their oft-told mantra of "don't breed or buy while shelter animals die!" This is another example of the Animal Rights movement's tendency to use hyperbole and a distortion of the facts in an attempt to mandate other people to adhere to their own ethics. Shelters do not "have" to euthanize animals. Several workable models of the "no-kill" philosophy exist for the shelter that chooses to implement them. Further, while dog breeders should be morally obligated to stand behind the animals they have bred, reclaim and rehome them should they end up in a shelter, it is fundamentally unamerican to tell a family that their only choice of location to obtain a dog from should be the animal shelter. This is where you leave the black and white of ethical behavior, and venture into that grey area of imposing upon the freedoms of others.

Many of the supporters of a moratorium on dog breeding claim that it is a temporary measure, a "stop-gap" until the plight of homeless animals has eased. Supporters of such a theory are either very foolish for believing that the government would ever voluntarily return to us a right that we voluntarily surrendered, or they are using the concept of a moratorium to mask their true agenda, the extinction of the domestic dog. Because you see, if every dog or cat in America were spayed and neutered tomorrow, as is the stated goal of the Animal Rights movement, it would, by the very laws of biology, then be physically impossible for those animals to produce a subsequent generation of pets. Which directly equates to there being NO MORE pets, 20 years from now. This is the extinction of the domestic dog that was referred to earlier. This is the "dirty little secret" of the Animal Rights movement.

The cold hard fact of the matter is, that the United States Department of Agriculture has failed miserably to enforce laws already on the books regarding the welfare of animals in commercial kennels. Instead of lobbying politicians to draft new legislation that is punitive to the hobby breeder, why have the Animal Rights advocates not focused their tremendous financial resources on getting the government to enforce laws that are already on the books regarding commercial kennels that have been ignored for decades? Could it be that the actual goal of PETA is not to improve the treatment of animals, but to eradicate pet animal ownership?

So then, what is to be done? Is it possible to end the cycle of cruelty and greed that is the commercial kennel, without embarking upon a slippery slope that erodes the rights of ANY American to own and breed a dog? Should every advocate of Animal Rights be written off due to their irrational position on the dog breeding issue? Is there any compromise to be had? Should we, as hobby breeders, choose the lesser of two evils, and stand shoulder to shoulder with the commercial kennel industry in defense of our right to continue to own and breed our dogs?

There are no easy answers. However, if we continue upon our current course, make no mistake, we will wake up one
day a couple decades from now, look around, and wonder where our best friend went. And if that day should come to pass, George Washington, the father of our country and an an accomplished dog breeder who kept immaculate records, will look down upon us in sorrow, and wonder how we let it happen. We have done quite enough talking. The time for action is now. Californians, please urge your state representative to vote no on AB 1634. Chicagoans, give Ed Burke's office a phone call. Dallas- you're screwed. Sorry. Sell your house and send a letter to your local chamber of commerce explaining exactly why you did so.

Anthony Philip Tyler
HLakitas@gmail.com
Hachiko's Legacy Akita Kennels
http://www.hachikoslegacy.com

AUTHOR'S NOTE:

This article was the result of weeks of interaction with people on all sides of the issue. I attempted to be as objective as possible. Having said that, I AM a dog breeder. I AM against mandatory spay/neuter legislation and I work vigorously to oppose it.


You can crosspost as you see fit but ONLY if you leave the author's note intact and verbatim.