Real Sonofanitch

Tierce continues to be plagued with itchiness and an uncontrollable urge to claw himself to pieces. We've combatted this as best we can while we try some different remedies.

Tierce's fashionable anti-scratch-until-you-hit-an-artery wear:


The T-shirt he's wearing is there because he's scratched his chest raw:

The first sign of problems - see the bare spots around the eyes and the goop in the right eye?


Then I noticed that the hair on his left ear was thinning...


The problem is that I don't know what's causing this. My aunt up and took him to the vet (I was not pleased, because she took him there without telling me and getting some VERY necessary information. However, she apologized, so I'm gonna let it go.) The vet found that he had a yeast infection, but that doesn't tell us anything because anything from allergies to mites could cause it... in fact, she basically gave us the same advice as Tierce's "grand-breeder" did - Nizoral anti-dandruff treatment (off-the-shelf, for-humans, anti-dandruff, anti-fungal shampoo). So, $85 later, we're still no closer to a cure.

I am still strongly leaning towards Tierce's 3 year rabies shot as a cause. He was scratching before, but it was only after the shot that he really started tearing at himself. Part of me hopes that it is and that we can cure it, because it still means that his immune system is genetically sound. If it turns out that he has allergies, he probably shouldn't be bred, as allergies are a symptom of a fucked-up immune system. However, if his immune system is merely stressed, he could still be a candidate as a sire.

Part of me really hopes so, as he has an outstanding temperament, his hips and eyes should clear with no problems and his knees are stable, so far. If he passes his tests, he would be a dog that could add a lot to the Shiba breed IMO (although he's only 16 months old, so too young to seriously think of that, yet). However, I would rather that he have a manageable allergy and not be bred than watch him go through this. I won't have any part of breeding a dog that could continue a problem that Shibas are notorious for.

My trainer advised me to take Tierce off his kibble, even though we switched to GO! Natural Grain Free, and this is what I think I'm going to try. I've been having uncomfortable thoughts about feeding Tierce what basically consists of protein/meal replacement bars all his life, even if they claim to give him all his daily needs' worth of nutrition. So, I'm going to try feeding him 'real food' and see where that takes us. I'm going to be doing a lot of research into the proper nutrition of real food, so I'll probably be posting regular updates on that stuff here.

Kibble is a fairly recent invention and dogs have survived for thousands of years on non-manufactured food. However, I'm not a fan of just feeding Tierce whatever we're eating and expecting him to do well on this. I think that this is a lot like veganism - wonderfully healthy when the right foods/supplements are eaten, but horribly unhealthy when approached carelessly. So we'll see.

Why buy from a responsible breeder when I could have a puppy NOW?

Right now, I'm LiveJournalling like a fiend, trying to convince a friend of mine why choosing a breeder who tests is so important. She wants a Japanese Chin, a breed prone to patellar luxation, eye problems and heart problems. She can't find a breeder who does testing on their dogs. She's getting frustrated and wondering if she should go to a breeder who doesn't test, on the assumption that "all dogs can have health problems; it's just the luck of the draw". I sent her a few links detailing why that isn't the case, but despair of actually explaining effectively enough so that she sees the risk factors.

It's hard to show a non-dog-educated person how the dog world works. I don't mean to sound supercilious; Dog knows that I'm not the first person to ask about the merits of buying a SUV vs. a hatchback. However, it seems to me that a lot of people are approaching buying a dog like they would a stack of plates at Wal*Mart. They don't really care where it comes from as long as it does the job. If a plate breaks, well, back to Wally World to buy some more.

However, it's been proven that dogs are not like plates. It does matter where they came from. If someone buys a dog from an irresponsible breeder who doesn't test and doesn't carefully consider each breeding, they are going to be at high risk for getting a dog that will cost nearly $2000 to address its health issues. If you break a plate, you generally don't care very much, but when Pookie is unable to go for the walks she loves because her knees are too painful, you generally are unhappy that Pookie is hurting and because she can't function as the companion you bought her to be.

To NDE people, you generally have to speak in terms of money, not ethics. Again, not a lot of people care where their stuff comes from, if it's the right price. A lot of people are wondering, "But why do I have to pay all that money for just a DOG?! Why should I wait for the right puppy instead of seeking out someone who has what I want in stock? Why should I be anal about whether the puppy's parents have the right testing and that the breeder isn't just tossing a male and female in the same pen because they both have pricked ears and curly tails?

The answer that everyone can relate to is money. After spending around $1000 for a dog, finding out that you have to shell out $2000 for a preventable genetic condition, the charm of buying cheap is somewhat tarnished. Spending two grand because the dog escaped from the house and lost an argument with a Honda Civic is a lot different then money that you find out that you might have avoided spending if you hadn't bought that puppy at Puppies R Us.

The biggest hurdle to get over is the fact that you can test your dogs clear of everything under the sun and still end up with a puppy with problems. I usually use some analogy involving kids... like if you were going to buy a car seat for little Eggbert Throckmorten III, apple of your eye. You see two identical-looking seats. The only significant difference is that one of them has been tested to make sure that the model's straps are solid and that the seat won't break and send little Eggy through the windshield at an inopportune moment. Which one do you buy? The one coming from a plant that regularly tests its products may still fail, but at least you know that measures were taken to prevent failure instead of the sunny assumption that, "well all our seats are safe!"

It's late, I'm tired, I'm depressed and I'm quickly losing patience with the wilful assumption that dogs are somehow the same as inanimate products on the market.

Reverse snobbery

You know what I fucking hate? The idea that buying a purebred dog, even if it's bred by a responsible breeder who screens, tests, trains and educates, is killing innocent pound puppies. I get it on the bulletin boards I'm on and casual comments elsewhere.

"Don't buy from a breeder - adopt!"

"All breeders are causing this pet overpopulation!"

"Rescue - don't breed!"

"How could you get a dog from a breeder when there are so many already needing homes?"

It used to be that purebred dog owners were the snobs, parading their fancy dogs in front of the lesser mongrels and mongrel-owners. Now it seems that everyone who ever plucked a dog out of the pound or SPCA deserves the Nobel Prize while people with the temerity to pick a dog whose background and breeding is likely to suit their lifestyle and goals should hang their heads in shame. At the very least, they should be proclaiming their intention to rescue "next time", to make up for the terrible sin they made in the deliberate purchase of a delibrately bred dog.

Never mind that some breeders are nearly obsessive-compulsive about their breedings. Forget the fact that some of these people spend thousands of dollars to test their dogs clear of genetic disorders and demand that the dogs they breed to have the same tests proving that they are not afflicted. Ignore the part where these people never make money off of these dogs, because they are spending it all on the continued health and welfare of the animals that they breed.

While I agree that irresponsible breeders are causing the current overpopulation of dogs, I hardly think that ALL breeders are guilty of this sin. I have yet to see a dog from a reputable breeder in the adoption circuit for the simple reason that they screen owners and demand first refusal if the owner cannot or will not keep the dog. The people who buy from these breeders are not just looking for BreedX; they are looking for a member of BreedX that is less likely to fall prey to genetic disorders or develop weird temperament problems.

Rescue and adoption are terrific ways to get a pet. But they aren't perfect. There are a lot of happy endings in the rescue world, but there are also a lot of horror stories too. You can't save them all and sometimes when you try, you end up hurting more than you bargained for. Pain that all the fuzzy bunnies and rainbows that rescue/adopter enthusiasts throw at you can't alleviate. Shibas are not a forgiving breed when it comes to neglect or abuse - you can end up with a dog who fear-bites or goes catatonic when faced with routine family life.

I'm not saying that people should not rescue dogs. I think that it's a noble and responsible choice, especially for someone who has the time and knowledge to work past the quirks that a dog - especially a Shiba - can have acquired during a hard-knock life. And it is very often successful - there are many stories of successful adoptions and happy lives.

But it isn't the answer for everybody. And if I decide to go a route which I believe will bring both me and the dog I introduce into my life the least pain and most happiness, I'm not going to feel guilty or responsible for someone else's choice to breed irresponsibly.

Don't Call Me A Pimp

Don't Call Me A Pimp

Excellent article that deserves frequent reposting:

Don't Call Me A Pimp

by Margaret Anne Cleek

(From ANIMAL PEOPLE, September 1993.)

When I lived in Detroit, I had a close friend who was a state welfare fraud investigator. To hear him tell it, every welfare mom was living it up on the dole, thought she had a right to have the government provide for every child she had, and had a man stashed away who lived off her check. His solution was to cut off the freeloading and make these people work for a living. He dehumanized all people on welfare, calling them the "scum de la scum," and always expected the worst of them.

Why did he think all welfare recipients were ripping off the system? The system abusers were the only people he ever saw. His perception of the situation was distorted because his sample did not accurately reflect the population of welfare recipients. His contempt for the people and the system left him unable to understand the complexity of the issues and solutions. But as he saw it, he was in the front lines and therefore he knew what needed to be done.

The perceptual distortion my friend experienced occurs in many occupations. I would suggest that humane work is one of them. Humane workers mostly see abused, neglected, or abandoned animals, and encounter a disproportionate number of abusive and negligent people. Their world often divides into two groups: us, the rescuers, and them, the reason animals need to be rescued, with little or no in-between. Animal protection activists may likewise suffer from perceptual distortion, because of the frequent use of worst cases along with exaggerated rhetoric in fundraising appeals.

Because people in animal protection mostly see and hear about irresponsible pet owners, they come to believe that all pet owners other than themselves are unfit to keep animals. Because they see hundreds or even thousands of unwanted and surplus animals, they believe all breeding should be stopped. Because most of the purebreds they see have been rejected by someone due to poor health or behavior, they come to believe that all purebred breeders are producing animals with horrendous defects.

Just as some law enforcement officers become so discouraged and frustrated that they resort to administering "street justice," demoralized and despairing rescuers may come to hate and dehumanize the people they hold accountable. Their anger is sometimes displaced toward readily available targets rather than toward those who are actually responsible, who may be harder to deal with.

The cost is heavy in the struggle against pet overpopulation. Humane groups increasingly focus their energies on lobbying in support of sweeping anti-breeding ordinances, which have little chance of passage in most jurisdictions and less chance of effective enforcement even if adopted. Dog and cat fanciers, many of them long involved in animal protection themselves, respond with costly public relations efforts and counter-offensives against some of the very humane groups they once supported.

Meanwhile, budget-conscious governments are reducing funding of neutering programs despite their record of success, and slashing animal control budgets to where many animal control departments are forced to euthanize more strays, sooner, with no money at all left over for humane education­­including spreading the word about the need for neutering.

I am not immune to perceptual distortion myself, based on my experience as a purebred dog fancier in a community which recently considered (and rejected) a stringent anti-breeding ordinance. I have responded to personal abuse with perhaps overbroad characterizations of those who attacked me, possibly adding to the animosity that increasingly divides the humane community. But my reality was that all my life I have been an animal person. If not for the pre-feminism sexist career counseling I received, I would have become a veterinarian. Animals, especially dogs, are not a business to me, nor a hobby. They are an integral part of my life. They have been my lifeline in times of desperate unhappiness. I have spent a lifetime learning about dogs, and have always acted for their welfare.

One night I went to bed secure in my persona as an animal person. The next morning, in a Kafkaesque transformation, I woke up in the uniform of the enemy with a "kick me" sign on my butt. I had been defined as "the pet overpopulation problem" by people who didn't know anything about what I and others like me did. A woman with a great salary from an animal rights organization with a million-dollar-plus budget was considered an impartial voice for animals, but I, who have never shown a dime's profit from animals, was defined as a money-driven special interest. The director of an animal shelter that releases thousands of unaltered animals every year was trying to pass laws to control me­­although in twelve years as a breeder I have never sold an animal who subsequently sired or whelped a litter. When his abysmally low redemption rate on neutering deposits was pointed out to him, he mentioned, without providing any empiric evidence to support his position, that the animals were being fixed and that people were leaving the deposits as donations. At the same time, he scoffed at the neutering contracts required by responsible breeders, calling even one unaltered animal "a time bomb."

Supporters of the breeding ordinance got away with claiming 20 million surplus animals are euthanized each year, more than three times the actual number shown by current pound and shelter surveys; that purebreds universally suffer from serious health problems; that breeders kill puppies who don't conform to artificial standards of perfection; that breeders who care about animals support breeding bans; that the overwhelming majority of animals at shelters are healthy and adoptable; and that pet overpopulation is fast getting worse, though the hard evidence from around the U.S. indicates exactly the opposite.

When I took the time to research the issues and present some alternative approaches based on the available data, my work was rejected out of hand by the breeding ordinance backers because I am (cringe) a breeder.

In fact, some animal protection activists­­not all­­are money-and-power-driven control freaks who don't like either people or animals very much. And some breeders, though unfortunately not all, are highly ethical individuals who care deeply for animals and consistently act in the best interests of all animals. No one camp has a monopoly on the good guys and the bad guys.

According to an American Kennel Club membership survey, most breeders are concerned with animal welfare, and consider pet overpopulation, puppy mills, and backyard breeders to be problems deserving prompt and serious attention.

Groups in conflict often overcome differences when they work together to achieve a common goal. Animal welfare and reducing the euthanasia count in shelters can be that goal for humane advocates and fancier/breeders­­if humane advocates are willing to involve us as part of the solution, instead of defining us as part of the problem.

Ethical breeding

Let me tell you something about us. Reputable fancier/breeders, of whom there are tens of thousands, have quality breeding stock which is tested clear for genetic disease and is of sound temperament. Husbandry is not, as yet, an exact science. We cannot produce defect-free animals, but we make ethical decisions, and do the best we can. Breeding by reputable fancier/breeders is done to improve the quality of the breed. Many of us breed only when we wish to keep an animal to exhibit or to add an animal to our breeding program. Some fanciers are reputed for producing quality animals. Newcomers who wish to show or add to their own breeding programs purchase animals from them. Such established breeders may produce several litters per year (not from the same mothers), but will have long waiting lists for the offspring.

Fancier/breeders may have thousands of dollars or even tens of thousands of dollars invested in breeding programs and individual dogs. We do not casually give away our bloodlines. We are careful about who gets our stock, as we do not want our valuable bloodlines to fall into the hands of backyard would-be commercial breeders. Our champion studs are not offered to service animals who are not of championship quality, for the same reason.

Some breeders who exhibit and are members of the fancy try to cover their expenses by producing litters for sale on the pet market. Some sell females on "puppy back" or "kitten back" contracts, requiring the purchaser to breed the animal and give one or more of the offspring back to the breeder. Co-ownership and animal-back contracts are in my opinion ethical in special instances, but I feel that someone who breeds many litters and sells the majority of the females on such terms is essentially a puppy mill (or the feline equivalent). Most fanciers frown on such tactics. I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to make back pet-related expenses, but the choices made when money is the motive differ from those made with the welfare of the breed in mind. Animal-back is not, in my opinion, in the best interest of the animals when practiced on a large scale.

Many people not familiar with the dog fancy believe that fanciers think of their dogs as commodities and that they have no "doggie quality of life." It is true that some dogs are maintained during their show careers in conditions more conducive to coat quality than life quality, but this is not true for the majority of our dogs. Most of us maintain our homes for the comfort, happiness, and security of our dogs. Many show dogs are members of the family, and may arrive at a show after spending the night on their owners' bed.

Show dogs generally receive excellent nutrition and veterinary care because of the owner's concern for their welfare and condition. Many retired show dogs live out the rest of their lives in their original homes, lording over the up-and-coming youngsters. Some are neutered and placed in homes as pets where they can enjoy the status of being an only dog.

Dogs who may not meet the breeders' requirements in terms of structure, marking, coat quality, dentition, and so forth are sold or placed in homes. While a responsible breeder will euthanize a pup with a deformity affecting the quality of his or her life, such as a cleft palate, destruction of animals for minor cosmetic flaws is not standard practice. Fancier/breeders are not to be confused with performance breeders who may produce and destroy puppies en masse in search of the fastest greyhounds, strongest sled dogs, and smartest hunting dogs. There is a market for dogs of most breeds who are neither candidates for the show ring, nor potential performance champions, if they have been adequately socialized. Socializing pups, which performance breeders may neglect, is an essential part of the fancier/breeder's regimen, and while the performance breeder's "culls" may only get in the way of his training routine, pups who aren't potential show dogs still have a role in acclimating their siblings to a family atmosphere. They have value, in other words, that isn't exclusively related to their sale price.

I am proud to sell one of my pups to a good home; what more could I ask for a pup than to become a valued member of a family?

Pets are often sold on neutering contracts, so that the buyers do not acquire breeding rights. Recently the American Kennel Club has made it possible for breeders to specify on the registration form that a specific dog is not sold for breeding. Such dogs are registerable, but their offspring are not. This is called limited registration. Concerned breeders applaud this development. The once accepted norm at AKC, that the papers had to go with the dog, and that any offspring of registered parents were registerable, created a lot of the problems we have today.

As I have argued elsewhere, I would like to see it become a requirement that all pups have limited registration, and that this be changed only when the owner has met minimum requirements for knowledge of the breed, and the dog has met some criteria of genetic health. Certainly all dogs sold at pet shops should be sold with limited registration­­but I suspect the pet industry would fight such a requirement tooth-and-nail. It should be noted that unscrupulous people could still breed limited registration or unregistered dogs, as they do now, and offer them for sale as "guaranteed full-blooded." My recommendation is not a perfect solution to backyard breeding industry, just one means of putting a crimp in it while insuring the integrity of registration.

For reputable breeders, the commitment to the buyer extends beyond the sale. The first year of a pup's life is generally hell on the owner. The breeder gives advice and assures the owner that it will get better, insuring that the pup doesn't become a shelter statistic before completing housebreaking. Reputable breeders take back animals who cannot be kept by their owners and re-place them in suitable homes. These animals are not "surplus." There are, unfortunately, some people who own one or more registered purebred dogs, usually of inferior stock, and sell their offspring as "AKC registered." Their commitment to the buyer ends at the point of sale, and they do not require buyers to neuter the dogs. Such backyard breeders are not generally willing or able to take back dogs who can no longer be kept by the buyer.

"Backyard" is an attitude and condition, not a place. Reputable fanciers may keep and breed animals in their yards, but not be "backyard breeders." My definition of a "backyard breeder" is someone who breeds dogs only for the purpose of making money. Any registered dog will do, and temperament and health are not considered. Many of these dogs are barely recognizable as the breed they represent. Corners are cut whenever possible; vaccinations may be omitted, or the dogs may receive low quality food. The pups are not properly socialized, and any buyer with the money will do.

I don't want to give the impression that I think any breeder who doesn't show dogs is a "backyard breeder." But a reputable breeder must do something with a dog other than mate him or her, and must accept responsibility for the pups he or she produces.

I also consider the "just one litter" breeder to be a backyard breeder. Regardless of motivation, and even if the pups are properly socialized, people should not be producing pups for sale without the commitment and experience to do so properly. Many of the "just one litter" breeders are surprised to learn there is no market for their pups.

Members of the humane community need to know that while backyard and "just one litter" breeders are collectively responsible for a great many pups, most of them if asked would claim they are not breeders. I have called such individuals and told them they had bred an animal turned in to rescue, and that they needed to take responsibility for the animal­­with little expectation that they would, but at least I could bust their chops a little. These people were incredulous that I called them breeders. They had a dog who had pups; they weren't breeders.

One of our rescue workers calls people who place newspaper ads for our breed, urging them to carefully place their puppies and informing them that when a dog comes into rescue we try to identify the breeder and return the dog. Again, these people say they aren't breeders. They couldn't be expected to take back a dog­­where would they put it?

When humane advocates talk of breeding bans and permits, these people don't think you mean them. Most would continue to do their thing, oblivious to the legislation, or pay one unaltered license fee and produce a litter or two before spaying their bitch. Remember, they are not breeders; they just have a dog who has pups.

There are large-scale out-of-state commercial breeders and/or puppy mill operations that supply pet stores. They do not require neutering, nor do they take back dogs. I am informed that pet shops sometimes tell buyers they can breed their acquisitions to make back the purchase price. Now that the public is getting the word that pet shops are not the best place to purchase a dog, though, some commercial breeders are selling through private individuals, who receive shipments and sell "home-raised" pups on commission. They may even claim to be doing "placement" of puppies "rescued" from puppy mills. They use the rhetoric of animal protection to help them collect big "adoption fees." And they too are not breeders.

Breeding vs. overpopulation

Commercial puppy production is big business. The fancier/breeder's puppy production is a drop in the bucket compared to the commercial kennel's proudction. Yet breeding bans and permit systems generally affect us while leaving the commercial breeders untouched. Indeed some proposed forms of breeding regulation would insure that commercial kennels would become the only source of purebred pups. And shelters would only have the unsocialized offspring of the urban strays turned out by the irresponsibles. I would hate to see this happen.

Some humane activists would cheer the demise of the purebred. I think this is naive. There is a tendency to over-romanticize the mutt. Purebreds give assurance of type and temperament, helping people pick the right dog for their lifestyle and conditions. When organizations such as the Humane Society of the U.S. push shelter adoptions by advancing the "one size fits all" theory, they do both dogs and people a disservice. People should not be forced to accept animals of unknown genetic background. Random-bred dogs may have inherited a predisposition toward dangerous or undesireable behavior. Some mixes are inherently dangerous, e.g. a large guarding breed crossed with a highly reactive herding breed. The position that all pups are created equal and if we love them they will turn out right simply is not true. Dogs provide a strong argument for behavioral genetics. Despite Barbara Woodhouse's often quoted statement that there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, there are bad dogs. Aggression toward humans and/or other animals, fear-biting, shyness, and so forth are inheritable characteristics, which responsible breeders strive to keep out of their breeding stock.

I believe animal shelters have a responsibility to protect the public from potentially dangerous and otherwise unsuitable animals­­not least because urging the adoption of these animals can result in even greater numbers of homeless animals. Some pups offered by shelters have literally been dragged out of dens after their homeless mother has been captured, and have had no socialization. The risk that they may never be acceptably socialized is exascerbated when we are dealing with an adult animal of unknown behavioral background. As a dog expert, I would advise any family unfamiliar with dogs against adopting a large dog of unknown background if they have small children. Adopting an adult dog is not the problem-free experience that many shelter workers suggest. It is possible that the dog is at the shelter because of behavioral problems, and further problems such as illness and aggression toward other dogs may result from the shelter experience. In any case, the dog will be confused and stressed by his or her rapidly changing circumstances, perhaps requiring more care and understanding than a pup.

Shelter dog adoption is appropriate for the very special people who understand what they may have to cope with, and have the necessary emotional and physical resources. But many people who perhaps could not successfully socialize a shelter animal nonetheless make very good dog owners if they are able to purchase the particular sort of dog who best suits their requirements, with follow-up help provided by the breeder.

As a dog fancier, I strive not only to promote dogs, but also to produce the "better bred" dog. And I try to tactfully educate those who think dog breeding only requires finding two dogs of the same breed and the opposite sex and getting them together.

As a responsible breeder, I refuse to accept reponsibility for creating pet overpopulation. And I do not buy the illogical argument that the birth of a healthy, wanted purebred litter displaces shelter animals. If you raise two happy, healthy children who are much loved and cared for, are you responsible for a battered child in the home of a substance abuser and a child in the Third World who is forced into slave labor or who sleeps on the street? You may wish to help those children, too, but the care you provide to your own takes nothing away from them.

While I do not accept blame for pet overpopulation, I would like to accept some responsibility for providing solutions. I have ideas to offer, and would like to open communication. But before we talk, could you please take those "All Breeders are PIMPS" bumper stickers off your car?