Skip to main content

View Diary: NYT takedown of AKC details their depravity (27 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  oh. (0+ / 0-)

    you mean the nyt article that left out a whole bunch of important information like how the AKC has investigators to STOP puppy mills and the majority of the ones busted are done so BECAUSE the AKC reported them?

    or the NYT article that stated that "40%" of the funding for the AKC comes from registrations, when it is really below 10%?

    or the article that left out the programs for medical research to ensure better health in dogs, that prohibit damaging inbreeding, etc?

    ya, right.

    oh, and did you know that the HSUS and many rescue groups want ALL private breeders prohibited from doing so?  and those same "activists" ONLY want shelter dogs (that have been spayed and neutered) to be available as pets!

    as someone who DID breed a specific type of dog because of that dog breed's amazing qualities and chose not to continue because i wasn't planning to actively work to increase the bloodlines (EVEN though ari's pups had 52 champions going back to one of the original foundation only five generations back).... i chose not to breed.

    however, the breeders i DO know are responsible, careful in placement of pups, they take pups BACK when the match doesn't work, they take pups BACK when the owner dies!

    the breeder/friend who will eventually have my next samoyed for me will be on the papers as a co-owner (through the akc) so that should i die before the pup does, i know EXACTLT where that pup will go.

    that times article is inaccurate, misleading and misrepresents one of the oldest organizations that houses information on genetic issues in breeds, works to prevent them, educates people on breed behavior to PREVENT unsuitable choices (which, btw, end up with the poor dog paying the price by being dumped either on the street or in a shelter).

    and if any of you think that dog breeding by the small breeder is "profitable" - it is not.  to breed a bitch, it starts with the health care a minimum of six months prior to breeding - checkups prior and after, vacinations and vets on call to insure any problem is immediately addressed... but that's not the half of it.

    RESPONSIBLE breeders dont move pups out until they have had all of the necessary shots - and that is long after they can climb out of the whelping box to eat half the books, shoes, chair legs, favorite stuff that they can sink their baby teeth into.

    my dog's pups - all eight of them - ate $1500 worth of shoes, boots, etc., and that doesn't count books, beds, etc.  that was in 1973.  

    the key here is "responsible".  now if you want to see ALL breeders shut down by mandatory spay/neutor - then are you advocating that no one should have the right to share their lives with dogs?  cats?

    if so, then i don't wish to discuss ANYTHING with you - ever again.

    next time, how about getting your facts straight before spewing the "peta" line.

    i'm looking for the link from this letter from the AKC - until i find it (it was on a facebook page of a respected breeder i know)
    i'll publish it for content.

    From the AKC:

    February 10, 2013
    Dear Fellow Dog Lover,

    The New York Times published an article (http://tinyurl.com/...) using unsubstantiated, anecdotal episodes to paint a grossly misleading and biased picture of dog breeders who register their dogs and litters with the AKC.

    In addition, they relied on opinions of other animal rights organizations, without facts to back them up, in an attempt to refute the AKC's good working relationship with law enforcement, animal control officers, lawmakers and others who care about animal welfare and reporting animal cruelty.

    AKC Respected As An Animal Welfare Organization:
    The article states, "But the A.K.C. is increasingly finding itself ostracized in the dog world, in the cross hairs of animal protection services, law enforcement agencies and lawmakers who say that the club is lax in performing inspections and that it often lobbies against basic animal rights bills because they could cut into dog registration fees."

    The truth is the vast majority of breeders are responsible; in fact, over 99% of the 55,000 that the AKC has inspected since 2000, have been found to be in compliance. When AKC does discover substandard conditions, our policies require that we immediately report them to local, state and federal officials.

    AKC has a productive, working relationship with local animal controls, state and local law enforcement, state departments of agriculture throughout the country, as well as the USDA, and works cooperatively with all of those agencies to ensure the enforcement of cruelty and neglect laws, as well as the provisions of the federal Animal Welfare Act.

    In fact, in many instances, the highly publicized raids for which animal rights groups take credit in the media have come about as a direct result of AKC's reporting to law enforcement.

    AKC is well respected by lawmakers who consider us credible experts on dog issues, and rely on our thoughtful and considered advice when it comes to legislation that will impact dogs and their breeders and owners.

    Misguided Opinions Versus Facts:
    The article also quotes ASPCA President and CEO Ed Sayres who says "a majority of the commercial breeders in the raids that his group participated in had ties to A.K.C.-registered litters." But, there is no proof or numbers given to back up this charge.

    He goes on to state "The irony to the consumer is that they're paying a lot for a fake Rolex." and that he thinks "dogs are often genetically compromised and come from traumatic environments."

    Both of these statements are opinions that were printed erroneously as fact.

    The ASPCA has a history of such tactics. Recently they reached a legal settlement with Feld Entertainment, Inc., the producer of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, agreeing to pay Feld $9.3 million to settle all claims related to ASPCA's part in more than a decade of manufactured litigation brought by animal rights interest groups that attempted to outlaw elephants in the company's Ringling Bros. Circus. This settlement applies only to the ASPCA.

    Feld Entertainment's lawsuit, including its claims for litigation abuse and racketeering (RICO), continues against the remaining defendants, the Humane Society of the United States, the Fund for Animals, Animal Welfare Institute, Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute, Tom Rider and the attorneys who were involved. Discovery in the initial lawsuit uncovered over $190,000 that these animal activist groups and their lawyers paid to Tom Rider who lived off of the money while serving as the "injured plaintiff" in the lawsuit against the circus.

    AKC is a Leading Not-For-Profit Organization:

    The article also states, "As recently as 2010, roughly 40 percent of the A.K.C.'s $61 million in annual revenue came from fees related to registration. Critics say a significant part of that includes revenue from questionable breeders like the Hamiltons, or so-called puppy mills, which breed dogs en masse with little regard for basic living standards." We gave the reporter statistics that dispute this claim but they were not used. In fact, less than 5 percent of our total revenue comes from commercial breeders who register dogs and litters with us.

    The AKC, for 129 years, has been committed to responsible dog ownership and responsible breeding of dogs, and we will continue our proactive efforts to further those goals, even when those efforts impact our bottom line.

    AKC saw substandard breeders leave the registry in droves in the mid-1990's when it instituted a care and conditions policy, and more leave when we sought to insure the integrity of the registry through DNA testing.

    An Incomplete Picture Portrayed:

    Hamilton Case: While the article inaccurately portrays Hamilton as a high volume breeder or "puppy mill," court documents make clear that this was a situation where "hoarding is likely a factor in what was occurring as the Hamilton's were clearly unable to part with dogs that they had collected over the years."

    Williams Case:
    The article fails to mention that Mr. and Mrs. Williams were charged in July of 2012 with one count of cruelty, and that charge was subsequently dismissed in September of 2012, based on the judge's determination that the warrant that led to the illegal search of the Williams' home and seizure of their dogs and the filing of the single charge was invalid. The Williams engaged in civil litigation to retain custody of their dogs from the "rescue" organization involved in the illegal seizure.

    This is similar to the more egregious case of Dan Christiansen in Montana who is suing the HSUS for $5M over a 2009 "raid" of his hunting dog kennel. A judge later ruled that the warrant for the raid was obtained based on intentionally misleading information, and all of the cruelty charges against Mr. Christiansen were dismissed.

    Chilinski Case:
    Likewise, the story fails to acknowledge that along with the seizure of Mr. Chilinski's dogs, law enforcement seized over 200 marijuana plants that he was growing on his property, a vocation which likely led to the deterioration of his kennel and his overall ability to care for his dogs in the two years between his last AKC inspection and the raid of this property.

    Voice Your Opinion:
    While the AKC's critics may be vocal, they are few, led by extremist national animal rights groups who see their legislative influence and massive fundraising abilities diminished by growing recognition that the focus of their efforts is not bettering the lives of dogs or enhancing our relationship with them.

    Nonetheless, AKC continues to:

    Spend millions annually on a kennel inspections program.

    Donate millions for the advancement of canine health research.

    Continues to give millions to canine search and rescue and disaster assistance.

    Continues to support the rights of responsible breeders to breed and raise dogs, and fight for the rights of responsible individuals to own them.

    It is important to note that in any enforcement and regulatory program, there will be those who approach the regulated activity with a disregard for compliance with the rules. As a result, there is always a risk that those non-compliant few will reflect negatively on the vast majority who are in compliance. Nonetheless, the AKC remains committed to its inspection program and its belief that the AKC is helping breeders achieve compliance through education regarding best practices for breeding and caring for dogs.

    Please share with your friends and family the facts and go to the NYT website and take the opportunity to post your comments about your commitment to responsible breeding and ownership of dogs.

    Sincerely,
    Alan Kalter
    Chairman of the Board
    American Kennel Club

    in the letter from the akc, the williams case is referenced, as are several others.  

    please!  if you are going to do a "story" - do some research to find out the other point of view.  and learn something about the akc and what it does before going off on a tangent because of one article.  hit pieces are hit pieces without some balance.

    sheesh.

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:17:47 AM PST

    •  ha ha ha (0+ / 0-)
      in fact, over 99% of the 55,000 that the AKC has inspected since 2000, have been found to be in compliance.
      i think the NYT's basic reporting shows that comment to be a fricking joke.  

      and there's NOTHING you can say that will whitewash their lobbying against puppy mills, lobbying against laws banning dogs being tortured (chained up all day, in stacked cages all day shitting on each other, etc).

      you've got NOTHING you can say about that.  NOTHING.

      Stop Prohibition, Start Harm Reduction

      by gnostradamus on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 05:14:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  why are you attacking the american kennel club? (0+ / 0-)

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:56:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  because they are complicit with animal torture (0+ / 0-)

          I've only said that like 10 times to you.  Why have you tried to ignore the fact that the AKC has lobbied against tethering and caging laws, i.e. anti-torture laws?  

          Do you think chaining up dogs all day is ok?  Are you ok with dogs in cages shitting down on those caged below?  No both of those are torture.  And you know it.

          They lobby against puppy mill laws.... You can try as hard as you can to ignore that fact, because you have your ulterior motives, but the facts remain.  The AKC does it for money and it's despicable.  And you know it.

          How can you even ask that question?  Whatever.  

          Stop Prohibition, Start Harm Reduction

          by gnostradamus on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:06:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  bullfuckinghorseshit. you don't have one bit (0+ / 0-)

            of factual basis for your spurious claims.  you make absurd accusations without proof (and don't link to the peta-fools lies and distortions - peta is the james o'keefe of the animal world).

            now, i'm done here until you can address an issue without wild eyed exclamations such as you have made here.

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:51:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (142)
  • Community (61)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (28)
  • Elections (21)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Racism (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Economy (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Politics (17)
  • Media (16)
  • Texas (16)
  • Environment (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site