Thursday, January 15, 2009

Nostra-Honest Prediction for 2009

If you think that it has been bad so far with the NKE, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Nostra-Honest predicts for 2009, one hell of a battle between the breeding industry and us. Winograd is not the problem now, the combination of him and the breeders has replaced him. Winograd was on his way out the door but the breeders shut it and called him back in. As announced with PetPac, they intend to use the Whino to push legislation and to do away with current laws protecting animals.

All that we have fought for and obtained is about to be challenged because of this association.

If you have never been in a legislative meeting or a city council meeting when a new law regarding animals is presented and have never seen the response from the breeding community, let me tell you now, it is not a pretty sight. You look at these breeders and wonder why they have no heart for these issues. You know that all they want to do is protect their illegal and immoral incomes.

After reading the how the BBC is dropping Crufts because of how the industry has diluted the breeds, I realize now that I was wrong to say there is such a thing as a "responsible breeder". Same thing is happening in this country. I have a friend who found a bulldog, just a short distance from a bulldog breeder, who had just been turned loose and why? Because it was a mutant, didn't even look like a bulldog except for body structure and that was off too. Only a mother could love the look of this dog, but he was terribly sweet. Prone to many skin infections, health problems but she loves him unconditionally. The breeder admitted to this dog coming from his place, but asked her not to tell anyone, it would hurt his business to let people know he is breeding mutants.


If you don't agree with this, then get off this blog. This is not the blog for you if you support breeding in any shape, form, or fashion at this point. Call it radical if you chose, but I am trying to save animals, what are you trying to do?


HonestyHelps said...

CODY, WHERE ARE YOU? I missed your comments.

Anonymous said...

Well it about time you got back to the subject.

When you consider how the greeders have always fought laws for animal protection, it's not wrong to call them immoral and unethical. I just love the former (if there is such a thing) breeder who now claims to want to help animals yet they continue to insist there is such a thing as a "responsible" breeder. There isn't. Any breeder that does not alter (no freaking contract) pet quality dogs is not responsible, period.

Anyone who plays in the AKC game is guilty of supporting horrible suffering such as the puppy mills. A shelter in KY is reporting that they are overrun with purebreds turned in when "breeders" could not or would not comply with a new law designed to relieve the suffering of puppy mills. Can you imagine what these dogs went through if their breeder cannot even meet the minimum standards for keeping a dog????? Supporting the kennel clubs and breeding in general is supporting cruelty.

Keep it up, I agree that our fight is now with the breeders who want to continue the suffering by supporting NKE.

Anonymous said...

You nailed it!!! Anyone thinking that there are some good "breeders" out there need to think again. We're not just fighting NKE now, we have to fight the breeding industry too in order to fight NKE. What a sorry start of a New Year.

HonestyHelps said...

What I hate is those "former" breeders who now think they are helping the shelter animals and just swear up and down that the fight is not with breeders, they are doing little or nothing that adds to the shelter population. In fact, I read one blog this week that just swears that purebreds are only about 20% of the shelter population and that is just a drop in the bucket, not worth worrying about. Well, tell that to those in the 20% who deal with genetic defects that put them in the shelter to begin with.

This blogger also defends the latest campaign by the breeders to harm the shelter pets by saying they are more prone to bite than purebreds. Well, excuse me, but I do believe that the vast majority of purebreds are unaltered and it is known and accepted that unaltered dogs do the biting. Mutts are much more likely to be altered. So this blogger is still defending breeding and their attacks against the shelters. Yet, this blogger is "fighting to save the shelters". Yeah, right, that's her tale, I sit on mine.

I can proudly say that I have never let a dog or cat deliberately or accidently have a litter. I even had a mouse neutered, yes a mouse. But I am being told that I have my head stuck in the "sand" and am getting away from the subject of spay/neuter.

Nothing is further from the truth. I am active everyday promoting spay/neuter. Just this week was the finalization of years of work in Riverside County. They had already adopted a spay/neuter program that I was a part of creating.

But I have met many of these types before and will meet many more before I go. They accomplish little and mostly do more harm than good. These types are good at starting a battle and then deserting in the middle of the fight. Pay no attention to them, we will continue the fight they run from.

Anonymous said...

Honesty, I know the type, we all run into them. They talk a good talk but when it comes right down to it, they still remain faithful to the breeders.

And what is so bad is they think it's ok to have "responsible" breeding. As long as breeders are sending out unaltered puppies, it is not okay. Responsible breeders are the foundation of backyard breeding, they actually create this situation that keeps our shelters full. I think we should show them no pity. Show them for what they are, a bunch of scumbags who made their living off of the suffering of the animals.

HonestyHelps said...

Ten years ago, California passed the Vincent Bill. This bill was designed to stop the breeders from acquiring breeding stock from the shelters. This bill requires all cats and dogs adopted from a shelter to be altered. Breeders would lose their bitches or studs, or they stop producing acceptable quality litters, and they would go to the shelters and find a similar dog. The kennel clubs have no idea that there is a substitute so the breeder can continue to use the "papers" on the dog from the shelter.

Breeders like to talk a good talk but in the end, they are just a bunch of greedy, selfish, cruel barbarians who have no humanity in their bodies.

Anonymous said...

PETA has started a movement to have the USA Network stop televising the Westchester show same as the BBC stopped Crufts and for the same reasons.

Please contact the USA Network and ask them to do this. Thanks.

Unknown said...

Howdy. Codey here.

Some really great posts up lately. Congratulations on your HONESTY.

I do think that, once upon a time, the AKC ran a tighter ship. I think that "reputable" AKC breeders did distance themselves from the puppy mills and animal cruelty.

But that was a long time ago. Over the years, there has been less and less interest in breeding by people who love dogs. The breeding/show world is a very strange one with some strange personalities and some massive egos. Breeders hate each other only slightly less than they collectively hate the animal welfare community, and the bickering is constant, laughable but true. And the "purebred" dog world in America originally emerged from a growing middle class that wanted status symbols to make them forget their humble roots. That has changed over time, especially as the educated, upper classes got into animal welfare instead of breeding.

In the beginning, dog breeders could ignore the plight of the unwanted because most of the unwanted just died on the streets of disease, gunshots, attacks. Many didn't live long enough to save.

But then more and more people tried to heal the suffering, and the full extent of the numbers of the unwanted started to become obvious.

As breeder registrations fell, there was still a need to keep making the massive amount of cash that pays for AKC salaries, rent on that Madison Avenue office, money for the dog shows, lobbying, cash for all the activities that holds the dog fancy AKC world together.

It was either cut spending or go into business with the puppy mills. The AKC chose the latter, and "reputable" breeders often don't like the business relationship, but the puppy mill registrations PAY FOR THEIR FANCY and their fantasy world (and help support their incomes that are much higher than they reveal.)

So the "reputable" breeders talk themselves into supporting the mills, opposing legislation, with the silliest myths that they can come up with (Breeding will end! Dogs will go extinct! Puppy mills regulations will destroy hobby breeders! and all the other hysteria that would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

Puppy mill registrations had been ongoing, but in 2001 the AKC tried to organize and expand this business by forming a Large Volume Breeder Committee to basically shill for the mills and convince AKC breeders that mill registrations and business were the answer for the AKC

There are some AKC people that are actually honest about the failure of this committee and business

Those honest souls are few and far between.

Instead we have this AKC board member and Chairman of the High Volume Breeder (puppy mill) Committee who formed a lobbying group called NAIA that lobbies for the mills so the AKC doesn't have to have such lobbying as apparent to the public.

This NAIA also supports some of the worst animal abuse imaginable on behalf of the animal use industries it represents, and you will see shared lobbying with this lobbying business that may be familiar to many

If you remember, when Nathan Winograd's book came out, the Center For Consumer Freedom was issuing press releases for Winograd's book and promoting it for him. NAIA still promotes Winograd.

Why? Because Winograd pushes for the same things as these breeders and puppy millers and the rest- he opposes regulations they don't like!

He wants anarchy, with no rules. Anything goes.

He also claims there is no overpopulation problem (if there were, breeders would share responsibility, right? deny it exists and the breeders are free and clear of responsibility. A convenient myth to promote if you are a breeder) and he also smears humane groups that expose the problems like puppy mills

To get back to the AKC, they tried to expand their business with Petland (which sells puppy mill puppies.) "Reputable" breeders had a hissy fit, and supposedly this business relationship was severed, but the AKC actively does business with Petland, from registering many of those Petland puppy mill puppies to selling their CAR microchips to people who buy the puppy mill puppies.

Petland and AKC are close.

AKC shows up at puppy mill breeder and broker conventions (like Hunte Corporation), and sells registrations at puppy mill auctions.

Indeed, Andrew Hunte, owner of the notorious puppy mill broker Hunte Corporation, is a member of the German Shepherd Dog Club of America!

Without the puppy mill business, the AKC will collapse, and the fantasy world for AKC breeders will go poof.

So the AKC needs to keep helping those mill breeders produce as many AKC registered puppies as possible, churned out factory style, so the AKC opposes regulations puppy mill breeders don't like (which is any and all!)

Therefore, we have opposition by AKC and AKC breeders to any proposed regulations, including mandatory spay neuter (which only asks that breeders get licensed. Heavens knows the mill breeders don't want that and neither does the AKC "hobby" breeder running a nice, underground operation!)

So we have lobbyists like this that the breed clubs and AKC are giving money to.

The interests of AKC now ARE the interests of the puppy mills. They are interwoven.

HonestyHelps said...

Hi, CODEY, it is my pleasure to hear from you again. You have always made some of the best comments. And I welcome your comments. You are a wealth of info in my opinion.

I have recently been accused of getting away from the focus of "No Kill". Excuse me but I don't think so. In fact, I feel I am expanding now since PetPac announced that they will seek legislation that all shelters employ "No Kill". The battle lines have been drawn, people will have to decide if they believe in responsible breeding or saving the shelter animals, you can't believe in both. Not at this point. If, and I do say if, there is such a thing as a "responsible" breeder out there, then bring them to me. More than likely I will chew them up and spit them out. Call it hate, call it whatever, I am pissed now. I've been fighting the "No Kill" battle too long and I don't appreciate the breeders sticking their noses into it, particularly when it is them that give unaltered pet quality puppies to the backyard breeders that fill our shelters, not even mentioning puppy mills. How can anyone defend this industry?

Unknown said...

My feeling is this.

The Winograd and Best Friends No Kill model causes more suffering and is not honest about that suffering.

It also does not work, and we see real life failure after real life failure.

If any special interest group or lobby is promoting suffering, then their hypocrisy needs to be examined.

That goes for naive "do gooder" types who have been suckered by the false claims, hoarders who use No Kill to rationalize their activity, as well as the breeders who now are selling No Kill for their financial interests.

Unknown said...

"Any breeder that does not alter (no freaking contract) pet quality dogs is not responsible, period. "

"Responsible" breeders constantly claim they aren't part of the problem because they make buyers "sign an altering contract."

Why a contract and not alter before sale? Because altering reduces profit.

These contracts are cheap shams to try to fool the public and authorities that breeders are "responsible" without breeders actually being responsible.

These altering contracts are LEGALLY WORTHLESS. In our country, animals are considered property, and a buyer may do anything they wish within the LAW to the animal that they buy.

Unless there is a spay neuter law in their area, the buyer does not have to alter no matter what contract they signed, and the breeder can't do a thing about it even if they have a signed "contract."

These contracts are SHAMS.

Buyers breed dogs from "responsible" breeders all the time, whether it's accidents, intentional backyard breeding to make some money, or whatever.

The breeders know that, but hope we don't.

So we hear about the sham altering contracts endlessly.

No truly responsible breeder sells a dog that is not altered first before sale and transfer.

Unknown said...

The person who runs PetPac has been under a fairly constant scrutiny for quasi-criminal behavior

Here is more

Look at the tab PetPac & Cops

Threatening, for example, Hispanic people that if they don't contribute to this lobby they will not get police or emergency services

Really serious bad activity

This is who Winograd has linked up with

Unknown said...

To claim that because only a supposed 20 percent of dogs in shelters are purebred, breeders are not part of the problem? makes no sense

Let's start with breeders OPPOSING THINGS LIKE SPAY NEUTER LAWS that help fill up the shelters to start

But back to purebreds in shelters. First of all the percentage is much higher in some areas.

Second, what about all the rescues that scoop abandoned purebreds out? Those were abandoned purebreds that people are spending lots of resources and time on.

And third, many of the puppies and dogs in shelters had at least one purebred parent. Person buys an unaltered dog from the breeder, and dog breeds with neighbor's dog. Or buyer wants to maybe sell some dogs themselves, breeds the purebred they bought, it's not so easy, dogs get dumped at shelter.

Or here is another nasty secret of the breeder world. "Responsible" breeder sells some stock, hush hush, to a puppy mill. We know the end result of those pet store puppies getting sold unaltered.

This is much more common than anyone realizes!

HonestyHelps said...

I ask people where they think "mutts" come from, they are the result of purebreds mating, period.

The Whino recently told a reporter that he will grant interviews with anyone, but that doesn't mean he supports their program. BULLSHIT, if you interview, you know that the people listening assume you support the group. He is so full of it.

Unknown said...

With regard to Petpac, they hosted Winograd at a California dog show with the breeders.

With regard to Center for Consumer Freedom, they were issuing press releases for Winograd's book, not just interviewing him.

And CCF sent out action notices to all their breeder and pro-animal abuse affiliates to promote, sponsor, and support Winograd.

Anonymous said...

Neat person, that Cody. No wonder you welcome his/her comments. Super stuff, between the both of you, Honesty.