The Right to Breed

The state that has no business in the bedrooms of the nation seeks to insert itself into the fallopian tubes of its poodles.

Catherine McMillan, National Post  Published: Thursday, December 17, 2009

I still recall my first visit to the Small Animal Clinic at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine in Saskatoon. As the young resident took down my puppy's health history, she advised that if I spayed my little dog before her first heat cycle, the risk of mammary cancer could be eliminated.

"Good to know," I replied. "But how will that affect her future as my foundation bitch?"

Some 25-plus years later, "Peras" has hundreds of champion descendants across six continents, while I am quite likely the first and only commercial artist to co-author a peer-reviewed paper for the American Journal of Veterinary Ophthalmology.

That young resident's words were a warning, though I didn't know it at the time. Veterinary medicine, once an equal partner with breeders, sporstmen, and food producers, is being transformed by an activist viewpoint that reduces owners to "guardians" and elevates health providers to the self-appointed role of animal "advocate."

"Spay and neuter" has achieved cult mantra. Dog breeders are held in suspicion: The only good dog is the "natural" one. Defects are blamed on breed standards, despite the fact that the majority of purebreds are produced by family pets and commercial breeders, their puppies as far removed from the show ring as a second-hand pickup from the Formula One track.

This attitude is reflected by provincial boards that recently have moved to impose bans on ear cropping and tail docking. Though long the subject of some controversy, these procedures serve both aesthetic and practical ends, injury prevention and hygiene among them.

This current turf war over puppy tails is just a preview of coming attractions. The state that has no business in the bedrooms of the nation seeks to insert itself into the fallopian tubes of its poodles.

A Canadian Kennel Club (CKC) director recently recounted the hostile atmosphere at a recent meeting with the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA): "These vets are not only speaking of cropping and docking. Several, led by New Brunswick, are openly critical of the CKC's breed standards, feel that breeders are poorly educated with respect to health, genetics and breeding practices to support an animal's welfare and are censorious of breeders -- in particular those breeders who breed conformation dogs for show. They are criticizing our standards for individual breeds and are of the opinion that we are not supporting the puppy purchasers with healthy dogs."

To achieve this, they hint at legislation. After all, who better to condemn the docking of a puppy's tail than the person who will, in a few weeks time, slice open her abdomen to remove a healthy uterus? Who better to seek criminalization of ear cropping than a profession that declaws kittens for profit?

For as often as they're consulted by media and policy makers on matters canine, a veterinarian receives no training in basic breed identification, much less the diverse origins and forces that shape gene pools. It's unreasonable to expect them to -- it takes a lifetime of study to master a single breed, much less hundreds.

The film Best in Show presented the dog-show circuit as a caravan of loopy narcissists. Omitted from the script were the contributions of the fancy to everyday canine society -- rescue efforts, training classes, consumer advice, the millions raised, the efforts donated to health research.

There is no profit in showing dogs, for costs quickly negate the returns. It's an esoteric pursuit, driven by love of breed, competitive reward, and that appreciation of form and symmetry shared by all artists, a thing we know as "beauty." The Doberman's "look of eagles," the merle collie's loud and luxurious coat, the silhouette of the Skipperke -- those things that fill the eye can determine the fate of breeds, for it is their beauty that so often attracts and inspires human beings to devote resources to their perpetuation.

The distance between a breed and extinction is five years, for this is the average reproductive lifespan of a female. For rare breeds and those with limited genetic diversity, it takes only one ill-conceived edict on the part of policy makers to start it down the road to collapse.

It seems like a small thing, this battle for a veterinarian's liberty to practice as he sees fit, a dog breeder's quest for perfection. After all, no one needs to crop ears on a Boxer. But then again, no one needs a Boxer at all, or any sort of pet. Purebreds (of all species) carry health risks derived from their genetic founding fathers. Breeds weren't created to compile longevity records, but to perform tasks for mankind -- to dispatch vermin, predators, and enemy barbarians, locate game, retrieve over water, to pull sleds, or warm a dowager's bed on a cold winter night. And so, they remain imperfect.

The Borzoi is living history of czarist Russia, the giant Mastiff a modern echo of ancient Rome -- but they suffer high rates of bloat. Poster artists recruited the English bulldog as a symbol of resolve in World War II, but the massive head that encouraged a nation results in caesarian sections. The Dalmatian's spots are beloved of Disney and children everywhere, but the genetics that create them can result in deafness. The merry spaniel can wag an undocked tail to bloody pulp, but no one hunts woodcock in these parts. Better no cocker, they say, than no tail.

Like so many other small things in this brave new humane world -- history, property rights, individual liberty, and the beholder's permission to declare something "beautiful" -- the eradication of the purebred dog is underway, aided and abetted by those we once considered friends. And yet, to this breeder at least, so seldom has one small thing carried with it such symbolism for what it is we are allowing them to destroy.

There is an air of nihilism in what they do. Like "green" zealots who insist millions will die from climate change unless we reduce the earth's population by billions, their ideological sisters in veterinary activism would solve the problems of purebred dogs by eliminating them altogether. They seem oddly disconnected from the reality that for veterinary medicine to survive, the patient must reproduce.

- Catherine McMillan lives in Saskatchewan and runs the blog "Small Dead Animals." In 2009, Miniature Schnauzers descending from her "Minuteman" kennel line include those ranked #1 in the breed in the USA, Canada, Brazil and England, along with the #2 MS in Australia and the Jr. World Winner at the World Show in Slovakia.

Catherine McMillan, National Post  Published: Thursday, December 17, 2009

http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Articles/LegislativeUpdate06012009

---

You can't really ban a word. In fact, an attempt to ban something often backfires, particularly in the United States, where we don't like people censoring our speech. So I'm not going to tell you not to say "puppy mill". I'm going to give you some very good reasons for not using that phrase. I speak to a lot of dog clubs and frequently hear dog breeders supporting so-called "anti-puppy-mill" laws. When I ask these people to define "puppy mill," invariably the definitions given include:

* People who "over breed" their dogs;
* People who don't take care of their dogs;
* People who have too many dogs;
* People who breed dogs "just for money"; and
* People who don't take health issues into account when breeding their dogs".

 

Let's look at these definitions in turn. What is "over breeding" ? In the wild, most canids can only reproduce once a year. Most domestic dogs can have two litters a year. When I first became a dog breeder, it was almost a religious belief that no female dog should be bred more than once a year. We were told that it was important to "rest" the uterus between litters. Today, however, thanks to advances in veterinary medicine, we know that an uterus is actually damaged by the elevated progesterone levels that occur in each heat cycle, whether the dog is pregnant or not. Veterinary reproduction specialists recommend that dogs be bred on their second or third heat cycle, that we do more back-to-back breedings, and that we spay the dogs at around age six.

 

The "over breeding" argument also treats reproduction as something that female dogs wouldn't do if they had a choice. Dogs aren't people - female dogs actually want to be bred when they're in heat and, with few exceptions, enjoy raising their puppies. It's not an unwelcome event for dogs. People who don't take care of their dogs are already guilty of a crime in all 50 states. There is nowhere in the United States where it is legal to neglect or abuse dogs. Sadly, a small minority of all dog breeders - commercial, home and hobby - commit neglect and abuse. Some of these do so out of ignorance, some out of laziness, and some out of meanness. All are already breaking the law. It just needs to be enforced.

 

One of our biggest problems now is that animal radicals insist that every dog be raised like a hothouse flower. One bill proposed this year would have required every kennel to be air conditioned. Many owners of working dogs prefer that their dogs be acclimated to hot weather so that they can work when the temperature goes up. Likewise, sled dogs in the north often sleep outdoors in the snow. Dogs can live and thrive in a wide range of environments. The Arctic Circle, the jungles of Africa, and the deserts of Arabia have all produced breeds of dogs that can live happily in conditions that might not suit all dogs. It is important that we not let activists redefine the needs of dogs to the extent that we are forced to provide a brass bed and a down pillow for every animal in the kennel!

 

What is "too many" dogs? Most of our breeds were developed by wealthy people who kept large numbers of dogs. Hound breeders traditionally kept good-sized packs, and early show breeders did as well. Now that our sport includes more mainstream people - people with jobs or people who need jobs - it's hard for many of us to keep large numbers of dogs. There is no inherent link between numbers of dogs and neglect. People who have the resources to keep big kennels provide a service for all of us, particularly if they maintain a good number of useful stud dogs.

 

Breeding dogs is expensive, and getting more so daily. It's just plain silly to pretend that none of us needs the money generated by puppy sales and stud services. Without that income, the vast majority of middle class breeders could not afford this sport. When our sport was solely in the hands of rich people, it was the norm to sneer at people in "trade", and part of that attitude was handed down to us with the culture of our sport. Today, however, the majority of us in the sport are "in trade", in the sense that we have to work to support ourselves. Our dogs must, at least in part, support themselves or most of us would have to get out of the game.

 

We have among us a small but vociferous group of people who think that breeders only care about producing great hunting or show dogs, and nothing about health. In fact, I've never met a breeder who wasn't concerned about the health of his dogs and the health of his breed. Most health problems in dogs don't have simple solutions, so it is only natural that breeders are often going to disagree about how to address health problems. When there's no right answer to a question, then breeders who follow a different path than you might choose are not necessarily wrong or unconcerned. I know that many believe that commercial breeders don't care about health, but the fact is that their professional organizations provide some of the most sophisticated health seminars in the country for their breeders.

 

Twenty years ago, animal activists created the phrase "puppy mill". Back then, it was only applied to commercial breeders, and then only to those who were breaking the law by neglecting their dogs. In a futile attempt to placate activists, many hobby breeders adopted the term "puppy mill" and used it to separate "them" from "us". It was a mistake then, and it's rapidly becoming fatal today. Every one of these so-called "anti-puppy-mill bills" has a definition that could easily include breeders of hunting and show dogs. Every time you use that phrase, you're contributing to the idea that dog breeders need to be regulated out of existence.

 

The message we need to send to America is that purebred dogs are good, not just because they have pedigrees, but because of their predictability, and that people should shop at least as carefully for a puppy as they do for a car. We don't need to help the animal radicals spread their message by using their favorite term: puppy mill.

 

LINKS

www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org

http://www.canadasguidetodogs.com/breederinfo11.htm

http://www.americanssupportinganimalownership.com/

Animal Rights.html

http://www.hsussucks.com/

http://www.prestigestandardpoodles.com/breedersarticle.htm

http://www.txfb.org/newsmanager/templates/TXFBTemplate.aspx?articleid=5569&zoneid=113

WSPA is affliated with the H$U$ :
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm?oid=136