Jump to content
BC Boards

Article on Language


sea4th
 Share

Recommended Posts

ETA - actually, a better title for this post would have been "Language and AR".

 

I found this quite interesting. I'm always very conscious of the words I use and how I present my dogs to others. I have to think about some of the stuff she presents, but overall, I think she's got it right.

 

 

Watch Your Language

By Charlotte McGowan

 

I would like to make some observations about language. The animal rights people want to change language to help them in their quest to give animals legal standing and we are helping them. Time to stop.

 

Adopting - this is a term used for humans. We don't adopt animals. Sorry, rescues don't offer dogs for adoption either. They offer them for placement. They re-home them. But they aren't adopted. If money changes hands, they sell them. A shelter here in Mass grosses over $700,000 a year selling imported shelter strays, mutts and feral street dogs. They go for $350 a pop. They don't rescue in my opinion, they keep product in the store! They have a big so-called not for profit 501©3 business. If we start calling it like it is (and I do) believe me you are going to feel so much better. Now if a purebred rescue collects money from someone for a dog, they are taking money as a placement or re-homing fee or they are asking to be reimbursed for expenses related to the re-homing. If you need it to be warmer and fuzzier, it is humane re-homing. Let's drop adoption. Animal rights people love us if we help them. Let's stop helping them.

 

Fostering - This is a term used for children taken by the state and put in the care of people not their parents. We don't foster dogs. We provide temporary care for displaced dogs. Sorry if you find that awkward but we can all benefit by retraining ourselves.

 

Guardian - legal term used for the legally responsible person caring for a minor child or incapacitated person. I think we get this one. We have to fight Guardian language in animal ordinances tooth and nail because a guardian takes away ownership from the owner. If you own a dog it is yours. If you are a guardian, you are not an owner. You are a person or entity with legal care responsibility. If dogs have guardians instead of owners, we no longer have ownership rights.

 

Puppy Mill- There is no such thing. Puppy mill is a slur, like the "n....." word. Let's stop using it. We hate substandard kennels. We want all dogs to be kept well. Well kept dogs are well kept dogs whether they are in kennels or in homes. It isn't about how many dogs there are it is about how well they are kept. HSU$ calls all farms factory farms. When have you ever heard them talk about or care about family farms? Now they call all breeders puppy mills. They try to mumble in a remote footnote that there might be some good breeders but for them it is all about shelters and if not shelters rescues. Do you get it? They use language to slander all animal use and all dog breeders. Their mumbled lip service doesn't fly with me.

 

Rescue - what is a rescue? To me, IMHO, it is taking on the care and rehoming of a dog in a true need situation. This includes when the owners are incapacitated or die, have to go into a care facility like a nursing home, lose their home, etc. When some one just wants to dump a dog because they are tired of it, that's a disposal job. I am not nice to such people. When purebred rescues go into auctions and buy dogs I call that just plain dumb. That is assisting and supporting commercial breeders. Some people may not agree but supporting this sort of thing does absolutely nothing for purebred dogs.

 

Words that do not belong in the language at all - furbabies, furkids, fur children. All of these terms make animals into children who (gasp) need guardians, adoption and fostering.

 

So I hope you watch your language!

Charlotte McGowan

 

 

Charlotte McGowan

Newton, Massachusetts

The AKC honors Charlotte McGowan, recipient of the AKC Community Achievement Award for her diligent work on legislative matters related to the dog fancy. McGowan serves as Legislative Liaison for two parent clubs, the Papillon Club of America and the American Shetland Sheepdog Association. She was also recently appointed legislative chair for the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and the legislative point person for the National Animal Interest Alliance Trust, an association dedicated to promoting animal welfare, supporting responsible animal use, and strengthening the bond between humans and animals.

McGowan spends a great deal of time and effort defending the rights of dog owners. She reviews national and international news related to animal rights extremism in order to alert the AKC Canine Legislation department and other interested groups of impending legislation. She posts legislative news from all over the country to email lists informing the dog fancy and dog owners of current legislative issues in their locales. “Charlotte is a wonderful resource. We can always call on her for assistance with legislative issues across the state of Massachusetts,” said Director of AKC Canine Legislation Stephanie Lane. “We were pleased to have her participate in Lobby Day last year.” McGowan regularly attends hearings on Boston’s Beacon Hill. In 2004, for example, she spent three days in Boston lobbying against a proposed bill that required anyone who bred more than one litter a year to be licensed. McGowan lobbied all 40 state senators and recruited several other people to join her lobbying efforts. The breeder-licensing bill died in the conference committee.

McGowan often speaks about legislation at Massachusetts dog club meetings in order to get more people involved. She recruits dog owners to attend hearings, write letters, and contact their legislators.

AKC Honors Fancier Charlotte McGowan with a Community Achievement

Award

[Tuesday, March 15, 2005]

New York, NY –The American Kennel Club (AKC) announced today that

Charlotte McGowan has been named a recipient of the AKC Community Achievement Award for her diligent work on legislative matters of interest to the dog fancy. She was one of two honorees this quarter –Port Chester Obedience Training Club of Port Chester, New York also received recognition. The AKC Community Achievement Awards support and recognize outstanding public education and legislation efforts of AKC-affiliated clubs, AKC-recognized federations, and their members. The AKC selects award recipients who have successfully promoted purebred dogs and responsible dog ownership within their communities or who have successfully introduced, monitored, and responded to legislative issues affecting dog ownership. McGowan received this recognition for her outstanding service as Legislative Liaison for two parent clubs, the Papillon Club of America and the American Shetland Sheepdog Association. She was also recently named legislative chair for the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and the legislative point person for the National Animal Interest Alliance Trust, an association dedicated to promoting animal welfare, supporting responsible animal use and strengthening the bond between humans and animals.

”Charlotte’s steadfast commitment to protecting the rights of purebred dog owners has had a profound effect on the sport today,” said Noreen Baxter, AKC's VP of Communications. “Using her own time and money, she researches and monitors those issues effecting the fancy nationwide, and in her home state of Massachusetts, works tirelessly to petition lawmakers about the dangers of breed specific and breeder licensing legislation. An invaluable resource to the AKC Canine Legislation department, we thank her for her assistance and attendance at AKC Lobby Day in Washington D.C. We are proud to recognize all of Charlotte’s efforts by honoring her with the AKC Community Achievement Award." A firm advocate for the rights of dog owners, McGowan spends a great deal of time and effort monitoring and distributing canine legislation information to interested parties. She reviews national and international news related to animal rights extremism and alerts the AKC Canine Legislation department and other interested groups of impending legislation. McGowan posts legislative news from all over the country to email lists informing the dog fancy and dog owners of current legislative issues in their locales. McGowan regularly attends hearings on Boston’s Beacon Hill. In 2004, for example, in her home state of Massachusetts, McGowan spent three days in Boston lobbying against a proposed bill that required anyone who bred more than one litter a year to be licensed. She lobbied all 40 members of the Massachusetts State Senate, and recruited other fanciers to join her efforts. The breeder-licensing bill in question died in the conference committee. McGowan’s work to recruit other purebred dog advocates continues to be successful. She often speaks at Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs meetings about issues effecting the fancy, and urges those who are concerned to get involved by attending hearings, writing letters, and contacting their legislators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

No wonder the AKC loves this woman. I agree that language is very important, that it shapes the way we think. But we aren't 'owners' of animals in the same way that we are owners of a couch or a pair of shoes. Well, maybe some people are. But they shouldn't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a crock. She writes from the perspective of someone who wants to make money off of selling lots of dogs, and who considers shelters and rescues as competition. Which they are, but what is wrong with that?

 

"Adopting - this is a term used for humans. We don't adopt animals. Sorry, rescues don't offer dogs for adoption either. They offer them for placement. They re-home them. But they aren't adopted. If money changes hands, they sell them. A shelter here in Mass grosses over $700,000 a year selling imported shelter strays, mutts and feral street dogs. They go for $350 a pop. "

 

As someone who adopted 2 kids, she can kiss my butt. I rescued a dog, and adopted a puppy. In the morning, my wife promises the puppies, "Your Dad will feed you!" If it came down to my adopted kid or my adopted dog, I could shoot the dog without blinking an eye. I know the difference, and everyone I've talked to does as well. However, adopting 1) carries connotations of a life-long commitment that is missing with 'buying'. I consider that a good thing. And 2) she says the shelter grosses over 700K. That could mean the shelter loses 300K and needs support from donations. Gross does NOT equal profit.

 

"Fostering - This is a term used for children taken by the state and put in the care of people not their parents. We don't foster dogs. We provide temporary care for displaced dogs."

 

Another KMB moment. This is directly analogous. The lady who was fostering the Aussie I adopted charged $91 for him. That is what she paid the shelter, and it included neutering, microchip, shots and a vet visit. I gave her 120, because all the food comes out of her pocket. And if people around Tucson didn't foster, the dogs would die...there isn't enough room in the shelters.

 

"Puppy Mill- There is no such thing. Puppy mill is a slur...It isn't about how many dogs there are it is about how well they are kept. HSU$...call all breeders puppy mills...but for them it is all about shelters and if not shelters rescues."

 

Spoken like someone who doesn't give a damn about the breed, just about making money for breeders who pay money to register their 'purebred' dogs. Here's a hint for her: if you own 500 dogs in 23 different breeds, you're a damn puppy mill. Notice the money sign in her HSU$. And notice the theme - shelters and rescues are getting business that our breeders want. How dare you get a puppy from a shelter when our purebred breeders have hundreds of puppies ready for sale! I've been critical on these boards when rescues overstate the case, but her concern is that the AKC loses money every time a mutt is adopted. KMB!

 

"Rescue - what is a rescue? To me, IMHO, it is taking on the care and rehoming of a dog in a true need situation."

 

There was an entire thread about this recently. Pima County defines a rescue as a dog in need of vet care (you have 24 hours), that will be killed shortly (at COB) if not 'rescued'. Sounds like rescue to me!

 

"Words that do not belong in the language at all - furbabies, furkids, fur children. All of these terms make animals into children..."

 

No they do not. They say the animal is incorporated into the family. Let a furbaby bite a child, and see what happens. I call my youngest puppy (purebred BC purchased from a lady in Oregon) "Black Jack the Pirate Pup". Guess what - I know he doesn't sail boats around the Caribbean, killing people and sinking ships.

 

Black Jack, the Pirate Pup!

His face looks nice, but his soul is rough!

Ruff! Ruff! Ruff! Ruff! Ruff!

 

My daughter hates it, but Jack Jack (AKA "Lit'l Dude") thinks it is fun...

 

Black Jack, trying to sink HMS DanDog:

 

Threeamigos2.jpg

 

My adopted dogs and their "Dad":

 

Rustyfirstday3.jpg

 

My purebred Pirate Puppy:

 

jackears.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with the language we use. We tend to personify our pets and animals and there is nothing wrong with that. I do it myself in reference to my dogs and I talk to them like they are human. There is however something to be said about persons or groups taking advantage of names for their own interests. On PETA's website there is a section about sea kittens. This is what they would like fish to be called. You should read it, it is very strange. They would like children to start referring to fish as seas kittens to discourage them from catching or eating fish. This is a clear example of taking advantage of language. Go read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm not sure I agree with all of her points, overall, she's got it right. The way things are phrased, or names or terminology for something can seep into our everyday language. Once it does, AR nuts can use the these anthropomorphic terms to their advantage. Do I sound paranoid? You betcha. A relationship that took thousands of years to forge to be taken away by some AR nut jobs. Yeh. I'm a little touchy on the subject.

 

Just because the woman is associated with the AKC does not automatically make her wrong on all counts. She's been actively involved in anti-dog legislation for years and I'm glad there are people like her who have my back as a dog owner. It's just too bad that dog owners aren't as unified as those trying to take their rights as dog owners away. If we were, we'd be quite a force to be reckoned with.

 

I'll just continue to be very careful the way I present my dogs to others -- as dogs, not furkids or babies, because as dogs, they are perfect just the way they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Just because the woman is associated with the AKC does not automatically make her wrong on all counts. She's been actively involved in anti-dog legislation for years and I'm glad there are people like her who have my back as a dog owner...

I don't think anyone is claiming that the woman's links with the AKC make her wrong on all counts. I think she is wrong on most counts based on her logic.

 

When she claims there are no puppy mills, she is wrong. "Puppy mill" isn't just inflammatory rhetoric. There are places that pump out hundred of purebred puppies for sale in a manner that should nauseate dog lovers.

 

When she says adoptions/rescues are just nice words for buying, she is wrong. There is a difference in commitment in getting a dog and buying a book. Even with my horses - I've BOUGHT 3 of them in the last year. We MAY own them for 20 years...or I might SELL them someday. If I do, my wife might kill me...but we'll cross that bridge if it happens! :rolleyes: I don't buy cars as a lifetime commitment. But when I buy a puppy, it sure is darn close to one!

 

When she suggests shelters & rescues are in it for the money, she is contradicting what I've seen time and again.

 

I agree with Rush Limbaugh - words have meanings. And in most of these cases, I believe the words are being used to accurately describe what is happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that both extreme sides of this debate use language very purposefully to produce propaganda to sway people to their cause. As do most political parties and opinionated groups.

 

It's important, when looking at any piece of persuasive writing, to analzye whether the author has a dog in the fight. In this case, and in the case of PETA and the "sea kittens," the hope is that people will not analyze the motivations of the groups who are writing, but will instead be swayed by the emotions that the writing stirs up into aligning with their founders.

 

IMO, it's absurd to try to get people to see dogs as equal to couches, just as it's ridiculous to try to get children to see fish sticks as equal to kitten sticks. (I almost thought the "sea kittens" thing was an urban legend, an absurd story designed to make PETA look sillier - but there it is, right on their website!)

 

Mary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see where she says that places that crank out puppies in huge numbers don't exist. She just doesn't call them puppymills. It appears to me that what she is saying is that the term puppymill is abused by AR people by lumping everyone who produces a litter of pups, under the term "puppymill". She tries to differentiate between "commercial" breeders (profit motive? large volume?) and "good"(?) breeders. It might be a matter of semantics, but words can be powerful, in a good way or a bad way.

 

Re: the term "rescue". When I got my first border collie, Pete, I had been looking for a year before someone who did "rescue" told me they knew of a nice rescue available & looking for a home. Pete's situation was that he was bought as a pup by a person on business in the UK and brought back home to this area. The family didn't like Pete, so he put the word out that he'd like to find Pete a nice home, for a cash donation (he wanted some of the money back he had put into him when Pete had gone for 6 weeks of stockdog training, when it became obvious that Pete needed to work). And so that "nice home" was me. I offered him 200.00, he took it and the rest is history. But was Pete a rescue? Because I heard of his availability from the mouth of a rescue person? That became an issue with some people later on down the road. As far as I'm concerned, the deal was between Pete's owner and me. Pete wasn't in any imminent danger. He was with a person wise enough to know that he couldn't keep the dog, but cared enough about him to wait until the right home came along. So Pete was "re-homed", sold.

 

When Flick died, I took the day off from work. When I came back in on Monday, there was an e-mail sent out to the office from a co-worker, a non-dog person, that I had lost my favorite dog and she had gotten a card for everyone to sign. Everyone in the office with a dog issue comes to me, (go figure), so I know the "my baby" "furkid" mentality is alive and well in the office. So, in part, for those who don't know me, I replied to the entire office with my own e-mail, thanking them and I thought an appropriate way to do it was to tell them of Flick. I began by saying that Flick was not my baby. She was not my child. Flick was my dog and with that term comes everything good. (Besides the "furbaby" mentality, we also have those for whom "dog" is a dirty word, a jokable concept.) In my writing about Flick, I intentionally brought the term "dog" back at everyone as something honest and good, and so I went on to describe Flick. "Soulmate" was thrown in there a couple of times too.

 

Language is powerful. I hope that by calling my "dog" Flick, my soulmate, I might have gotten people thinking about that term. Sure, they might go back to using the term "dog" to mean something less than stellar, but I think with my reply to the office, I might have set some people straight, where if they didn't know where I was coming from before, I left no doubt after that.

 

Another term --- viscious. Another word greatly misused and abused. I had a wonderful GSD, who was a rescue. He was not a confident dog, and so we set about to change that. At his first obedience class, the instructor and I decided to try the Halti on him. Major (his name), resisted --- not with teeth, not with growling, but crying and standing on his back legs to paw the thing off his face. In that process the webbing between his toes was caught in the clip of the leash. He was in pain, and so, because he growled, he was labeled "viscious". I was furious, that people working as obedience instructors, people working with the public, can so freely mislabel someone's dog. What if Maj was with someone who didn't know better? Think of the consequences for the dog. Instead, what I did was that put together a seminar on "aggression". The speaker was a behaviorist. I thought I'd be happy if we drew 20 people. That seminar, on a cold day in January, drew 140 people! I put Major's story and picture by the sign in sheet. Maj had died a couple of months before, but this was done for him and any other dog who is mislabeled and often doomed.

 

So, yeh, I'm really anal about how words are used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ETA - actually, a better title for this post would have been "Language and AR".

 

[Puppy Mill- There is no such thing. Puppy mill is a slur, like the "n....." word. Let's stop using it. We hate substandard kennels. We want all dogs to be kept well. Well kept dogs are well kept dogs whether they are in kennels or in homes. It isn't about how many dogs there are it is about how well they are kept.

 

I always thought there were BYB, puppymills and COE breeders. In my opinion anyone that pumps out hundreds of puppies each year for commercial gain cant possibly be doing service to dogs regardless of how well kept, and are therefore puppy mills. There is a lot more to breeding than living conditions as the responsible breeders well know.

 

And as to sea kittens, quite ridiculous really. What we need is for the world to manage their fish stocks sustainably and take due environmental care, same with anything, but then there are also people in the world with nothing to eat and who are battling to keep their families alive.

 

I have no problem with adopting, rescuing and fostering because dogs have formed a very tight association with man for thousands of years in all sorts of roles from working, therapy, companions etc. In in a lot of cases it accurately describes the situation and many dogs I know are part of the family.

 

I can see what it is all about and how language is really important, but sometimes I think the world is a crazy place where sense and logic is often overridden by the ridiculous and the radical and a number of other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of language--

 

So often on this board I see people use the phrase 'animal rights' or AR without qualification. It's a term that's come to be associated with what many of you perceive as extremism, in particular with PETA.

 

But do we really want to live in a world where animals have NO rights? I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of language--

 

So often on this board I see people use the phrase 'animal rights' or AR without qualification. It's a term that's come to be associated with what many of you perceive as extremism, in particular with PETA.

 

But do we really want to live in a world where animals have NO rights? I don't.

There is a difference between animal rights and animal welfare. The first is associated with radical agendas (like PETA and HSUS) and the second with humane, caring, quality, appropriate care for animals. I am all for animal welfare - I am not for animal rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sea4 & Sue, I think you missed my point, which is--

regardless of how these terms may have been appropriated or claimed by certain groups & associated with them, the word "rights" does have a particular meaning. While 'animal rights' is a phrase that connotes certain things to people, "rights" has a clear, denotative value. I think I can separate out from all that rhetoric my belief that all sentient beings, regardless of whatever phrases get hurled about, do have 'rights.' To me, it is a given.

 

The problem for me with the word 'welfare' (though, to be sure, you may be using it differently & will perhaps explain) is that animals--and all beings who are powerless or less powerful--are dependent upon / completely controlled by humans. Some humans rise to the challenge; unfortunately, many do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When she claims there are no puppy mills, she is wrong. "Puppy mill" isn't just inflammatory rhetoric. There are places that pump out hundred of purebred puppies for sale in a manner that should nauseate dog lovers.

 

I don't think that's what she's claiming. She's saying that HSUS and PETA use the term to describe all breeders. So she's suggesting getting rid of the term "puppy mill," in favor of "substandard breeder" (which admittedly isn't as catchy :D ). Because it shouldn't matter whether the breeder is a high volume "puppy mill" or a backyard breeder who only keeps a couple of bitches to pump out three or four litters a year. If they're bad breeders, they're bad breeders.

 

But folks like HSUS and PETA consider all breeders bad and therefore won't make the distinction between those who produce carefully planned litters to improve the breed and those who treat puppies as a commercial crop.

 

BTW - Jack's adorable. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't her basic premise completely wrong? She writes: "The animal rights people want to change language to help them in their quest to give animals legal standing and we are helping them," and then she starts off by discussing terms such as "adopting," and "fostering."

 

But does the use of the terms "adopting" and "fostering" for pets really come from the animal rights movement? I was under the impression that people had been using these terms for decades with no input from PETA or HSUS. In fact I believe that these two words are already pretty established parts of our language for talking about pets. (By the way, I get e-mails every semester from the university bookstore asking me what textbooks I'll be "adopting" for my next courses--but, trust me, I don't get too attached to them. In fact, I've been know to abandon an adopted text after one semester if it doesn't work for my students. Words can be context-specific, people!)

 

Actually, in regard to these two terms, it seems to me that instead McGowan herself is asking for a change in our language, a change that would downplay the work of rescues and shelters, by insisting their activities are the functional equivalent of commercial breeders. Who wants to volunteer for or donate to an organization that sells goods? Why not leave that to the market?

 

The next term she discusses, "guardian," does appear to come from the animal rights movement, and I would agree that there are legal implications when it's substituted for "owner" in law and ordinances. It shows no signs of catching on in everyday speech (have you ever heard anyone use it that way?) and so I would argue it falls into a completely different category than all the other terms McGowan brings up.

 

Then there's "puppy mill." Was this a term foisted on us by the animal rights movement? A Lexis-Nexis search shows it appearing in news articles as of the early 1990s. It's an established term by now, so the change has already taken place, whoever is responsible for it.

 

And what about the term "rescue" as applied to animals? Was this coined by PETA or HSUS? If McGowan has evidence showing this, I'd like to see it. Is it animal rights activists who are pushing broader understandings of "rescue," such as applying to the purchase of an animal the previous owner had no use for? I sincerely doubt it.

 

And does anyone, even McGowan, think that animal rights activists are pushing terms such as fur-kids for pets? In searching their website I can't find any sign of this. They use the term "companion animals" (an apparently PETA-coined term that McGowan completely ignores), and my suspicion would be that they might steer away from less dignified terms such as fur-babies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sea4 & Sue, I think you missed my point, which is--

regardless of how these terms may have been appropriated or claimed by certain groups & associated with them, the word "rights" does have a particular meaning. While 'animal rights' is a phrase that connotes certain things to people, "rights" has a clear, denotative value. I think I can separate out from all that rhetoric my belief that all sentient beings, regardless of whatever phrases get hurled about, do have 'rights.' To me, it is a given.

 

The problem for me with the word 'welfare' (though, to be sure, you may be using it differently & will perhaps explain) is that animals--and all beings who are powerless or less powerful--are dependent upon / completely controlled by humans. Some humans rise to the challenge; unfortunately, many do not.

 

OK. I understand what you're saying. I too believe that all living things have "rights", that man and his laws do not/should not necessarily define what those rights might be or should have the the final say whether another living being has a right to eat, drink, even live, but it does. We need those laws and we need to put teeth in them before they're worth anything.

 

AR takes this right to an unrealistic extreme, the ultimate purpose being that we have a symbiotic relationship with animals --- dogs, cats included, that we admire each other from afar, and if a few humans are sacrificed along the way, well, that's just the order of things, in their view.

 

Do my dogs have a right to eat, a right to be healthy, a right to drink good clean water? --- if anyone told me different, I'd want to kick their a$$. Do animals have a right to a life without pain? You betcha. Unfortunately, some people can't get it through their thick skulls that all animals are entitled to the very basics, and that's why we have laws. And that's why AR groups have ideas that are out of some Disneyesque world, not thought through, and lots of money to put behind some of their hare brained ideas, so they compare terms like "rights", "puppymills" to, say, the civil rights movement, the victims of puppy mills to holocaust survivors.

 

So maybe these nut jobs kidnapped the term "rights", and now we have to use another term, "welfare" to show a distinction between common sense and hare brained ideas.

 

Hope that made sense. If it didn't sorry --- this little ACD rescue I have was on my back, on my lap, on my head, the entire time I tried to write this. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's what she's claiming. She's saying that HSUS and PETA use the term to describe all breeders. So she's suggesting getting rid of the term "puppy mill," in favor of "substandard breeder" (which admittedly isn't as catchy :D ). Because it shouldn't matter whether the breeder is a high volume "puppy mill" or a backyard breeder who only keeps a couple of bitches to pump out three or four litters a year. If they're bad breeders, they're bad breeders.

 

But folks like HSUS and PETA consider all breeders bad and therefore won't make the distinction between those who produce carefully planned litters to improve the breed and those who treat puppies as a commercial crop.

 

BTW - Jack's adorable. :rolleyes:

I think a puppy mill is exactly what it sounds like: a puppy factory. Breeders who churn out puppies like a factory churns out widgets, and with no more concern for their treatment and fate, are puppy mills. I find it a very accurate term, which often applies to large, commercial breeders who don't abuse their dogs, but who also care nothing for the breed or the fate of their puppies.

 

I once considered being a BYB myself, with an unregistered Border Collie bitch using a male without papers. The bitch showed signs of being a good worker in her one chance. The would-be sire was a working cow dog on a local ranch. With no papers, the puppies would have had no great value, but all of them would have been spoken for before birth. I understand the objections folks have, but I certainly would not have been operating a puppy mill. My opinion of HSUS (not the various Humane shelters, but the national organization) is only a bit higher than my opinion of PETA. And as a right-wing extremist carnivore, I'm no fan of PETA.

 

And yes, thank you, Jack is adorable. He's lying on my feet right now, as is pretty typical. He sure talks a lot for a Border Collie, though. I sometimes wonder is he's a she... :D Rusty the Aussie is pretty good, too - even with red eyes! You rarely find one more than a few feet from the other.

 

EDITED to update the pic of Rusty & Jack, characteristically side-by-side.

 

Rusty_Jack2.jpg

 

Rights: My understanding is that rights are something granted by God (or natural law, or possibly by the Constitution in the US), that cannot be overridden by the laws of man. Rights can be denied by man, but not removed. I tend to worry when anyone talks about rights, since it usually means they want free access to my wallet. As a rule of thumb, rights shouldn't cost money. If God grants a right, He ought to fund it.

 

People who talk about animal rights, or children's rights, scare me. It generally means they want something, don't need a logical reason, and will try to take the animals or children away if you don't go along. Many animal 'rights' activists want to sever any relation between domesticated animals and man. IMHO, they neither understand nor care for animals. They just believe man is bad, so any association with us is bad too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch Your Language

By Charlotte McGowan

 

Adopting - this is a term used for humans. We don't adopt animals. Sorry, rescues don't offer dogs for adoption either. They offer them for placement. They re-home them. But they aren't adopted. If money changes hands, they sell them.

 

My girlfriend adopted and it cost her a bundle. So money did change hands. So according to Ms. McGowan, I guess that means here in the United States, we don't adopt children; we "SELL" children. Really, Charlotte, YOU should watch your language. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's what she's claiming. She's saying that HSUS and PETA use the term [puppy mill] to describe all breeders. So she's suggesting getting rid of the term "puppy mill," in favor of "substandard breeder" (which admittedly isn't as catchy :rolleyes: ).

 

In the first place, I dispute that HSUS and PETA use the term puppy mill to describe all breeders. On its website, HSUS gives advice on how to find a good breeder, and defines a puppy mill: "Puppy mills are mass dog-breeding operations. For more than four decades, The Humane Society of the United States has been working to stop these mass dog-breeding operations where dogs live their entire lives in cages." That's how I understand the term "puppy mill" also -- a place where puppies are mass produced as commodities, like a mill or factory. It's a very useful term, and the pejorative meaning attached to it is part of its value. Secondly, it sounds to me as if McGowan has no problem with the mass production of pups, and that's why she doesn't like the term "puppy mill." It's the physical kennel she's evaluating for quality, not the breeder. She says, "We hate substandard kennels. We want all dogs to be kept well. Well kept dogs are well kept dogs whether they are in kennels or in homes. It isn't about how many dogs there are it is about how well they are kept." Well, for me it's both.

 

But folks like HSUS and PETA consider all breeders bad and therefore won't make the distinction between those who produce carefully planned litters to improve the breed and those who treat puppies as a commercial crop.

 

Even if that were so, I don't see why our dropping a perfectly useful term from our vocabulary thwarts them, or our continuing to use it benefits them. There ARE such things as puppy mills. If we start using "substandard kennels" to describe "puppy mills," is that going to make folks like HSUS and PETA stop considering all breeders bad, and start making the distinction? Or is it just going to make the public think we're denying the existence of puppy mills?

 

I don't like the "guardian" usage, because I think it IS an attempt to make a political point, with a long-range intent of changing the legal relationship between dogs and their people. But none of us use that term anyway. I don't like "furkids," etc., but that's just a matter of taste and style -- I don't regard my dogs as my children and think it's silly to refer to them that way. But live and let live -- I can't see any political significance to the terms whatsoever. Nor can I see any gain for HSUS or PETA through the use of "fostering" or "adopting" (a term which I can personally attest was in common usage for getting a dog more than half a century ago at least). And I don't get her point at all about the use of "rescue." Yes, buying dogs from auctions is dumb, but if I say I rescued my dog from a neighbor who wanted to dump it, how the heck does that benefit "the animal rights people"? And if I avoid saying "rescue" in that context, how does it set back the animal rights people?

 

I guess all in all I couldn't see much merit in the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^What Eileen said re: HSUS's website and official line.

 

But folks like HSUS and PETA consider all breeders bad and therefore won't make the distinction between those who produce carefully planned litters to improve the breed and those who treat puppies as a commercial crop.

 

I think it is really weird to lump in HSUS with maniacs like PETA. It's like lumping the Nature Conservancy in with the Earth Liberation Front or something. They DON'T have the same agenda, acceptable methods, RESULTS, or ethical stance, but are both NPOs in the same very general arena (animal welfare issues on one hand and conservation issues on the other). In both cases, one group resorts to terrorist and illegal "stunts" that usually bring lots of publicity but effect no positive change (i.e. lab animals let to run wild and die of thirst, starvation, being run over; or sabotaging machinery that endangers people's lives), while the other employs respected subject matter experts to really understand and effect change in larger issues and broader problems in society. The publicity these groups gets is sometimes "lauded" as, well at least they got people talking about it! Whatever - usually they get people talking about animals welfare advocates or conservation advocates as being crazy/dangerous/stupid IN GENERAL and it discredits the larger movement. This was why I had no respect for, and was intensely irritated by, the famed "Berkeley Tree Sitters". What they were doing made about as much sense as the "sea kitten" thing, but at least more people understand exactly *why* the sea kitten thing is so dumb.

 

It wasn't the HSUS but a related NPO, the SPCA, that counseled me to find a responsible breeder or rescue group, and how to do it locally, when I told them I wanted a puppy. They did not try to make me look again at the 25 wonderful adult pit bulls they had available for adoption, nor did they counsel me to wait for them to have a puppy. They respected my choice and tried to help me enact it in a way that wouldn't support unethical treatment or breeding of animals. I can't say for certain HSUS would have done the same in that situation, but their website gives a very similar message.

 

PETA, otoh, used to picket outside the Salk Institute when I worked there because they use animals for medical research. I had to walk through the lines to get to work some days and got hit by something once. I wanted to scream back at them, "I certainly hope none of you or your family members EVER get cancer, Alzheimers, AIDS, or spinal paralysis. Or a million other things you would be terrified about if you knew existed. Because that's what we're doing in there - trying to FIX those things." I highly DOUBT any of those people would refuse any and all treatments for any of those diseases that have had any animal experimentation. Mary Kay Cosmetics I see the argument for, but the fact these people never put anything in proper perspective is part of what makes them wackos.

 

As for the article, I thought it was poorly written and was essentially an argument saying breeding is not a crime, in a really underhanded, confusing, illogical way. (And obviously, I don't think breeding is a crime, having just bought a puppy.) My read of it: if you think adoption is great and buying a dog is not, well, guess what? You didn't adopt that dog, you bought it. Shelters and rescue groups shouldn't charge any money. Many shelters are just trying to turn a profit, which makes them worse than breeders (who are NOT bad people, don't use pejorative terms for breeders.) If you keep nice clean kennels, it doesn't matter how many dogs you have or produce or sell. And that is the first time I've heard anyone use guardian that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...