http://clintonoaks.com/pride.htmI would like to clarify that I am not the author of the following article and take no credit for its content. I wish I could have been as forthcoming and gutsy as Mrs. Klumb.
The article was given to me on August 15, 2006, by a fellow breeder.
During a recent visit the conversation turned to this very subject, she dug it out and passed it on to me. It had been given to her by another breeder not long after it appeared in print years earlier, she had kept the copy for 4 years.
I forgot about it until I got home and later in the evening read it.
It was a cathartic moment for me. I think it will be for you too. If you feel compelled to email me and voice your opinion I would love to hear from you. ginavesco
Enjoy.
----------------------------------
Pentimento
by DIANE KLUMB
As published in Show Site Magazine September 2002
PRIDE & PREJUDICE
Last month, I suggested that perhaps the fact that many of have been
cowed by external forces into being embarrassed to even admit we are
breeders might well be a major contributing force to the development of
purely commercial breeding operations, which now produce the bulk of
the purebred dogs in this country.
Rather than the spate of hate-mail I was expecting. I received a
surprising amount of support from breeders both new and old who, as it
turns out, feel exactly the same way, but simply hadn't the nerve
to say anything publicly in the current climate.
Well, God knows I have my failings (and both my friends and
detractors would, I'm sure, be more than glad to itemize them for
me if asked!) but I'm pretty sure one of them is not lack of nerve,
so here it comes, folks –
Hi. My name is Diane, and I am a Breeder.
I am good at it, and I am damned proud of it.
I bought my first show dog in 1969 and whelped my first
litter in April, 1975.
I have, since that inauspicious beginning, in partnership with my long
suffering husband and a few good friends produced a few dozen
champions, some top producers, a handful of Specials, and a lot of
superb close-working grouse dogs and well loved companions. We kept a
fair number over the years and sold the rest. (NOTE: I said sold, not
`placed'...we'll address that particular idiocy later…)
We owned a kennel for many years, and trained gun dogs. This involved
the killing of untold numbers of game birds, all of which we ate. I
have more recipes for pheasant, grouse and woodcock than you can shake
a stick at. We showed our hunting dogs and hunted over our show dogs.
I do not believe for a minute that the whelping or sale of
a single one of those purebred dogs is in any way responsible of the
euthanization of a million unwanted dogs a year at the shelters around
the country, any more that I believed that cleaning my plate when I was
a kid could in any way benefit all the poor starving children in
Africa, no matter how much the nuns or my mother tried to make me feel
guilty about it.
I couldn't see the logic then and I can't see it
now (although today I would maybe refrain from suggesting that we
bundle up Sister Edlita's meatloaf and actually send it to the poor
starving children in Africa…)
Look at it this way:
If I go to a bookstore specifically to buy Matt
Ridley's The Human Genome (which, as it happens, I recently did) and
that bookstore does not have it, I will do one of two things – I
will order it, or I will go to another bookstore the does carry it and
purchase it there. What I will NOT do is take the same money and buy
Martha Stewart's latest cookbook instead, because this is not what
I want.
Guilt without logic is dangerous.
Show breeders are simply not responsible for the millions
of unplanned and unwanted mongrels produced in this country. Period. So
don't let anyone make you feel guilty about it.
I do not understand why the top horse farms in this country
are not in the least embarrassed by the fact they make a lot of money
doing it, yet in the world of dogs if one is to be respected, one is to
lose one's ass financially. That is a load of horseshit, pure and
simple, yet we accept it meekly and without question.
Why is that?
Basic economic theory suggests that if we are not turning a
profit, one of two things is wrong – we suffer from poor
management, ore we are not asking enough for our product to cover our
production costs. What are our costs?
Well, if we are breeding good dogs, besides basic food and veterinary
costs we ought to be adding in the costs of showing these animals, and
advertising, and health testing, which are not expenses incurred by the
high volume breeders (puppy mills).
OK, so we have much higher costs involved in producing our
healthier, sounder animals. Yet the average pet shop puppy sells for
about the same as the average well bred pet from show stock, and often
they sell for much more.
What's wrong with this picture?
We're stupid that's what's wrong.
Q. Why does a Jaguar sell for ten times more
than a Hundai?
A. Because it's worth more and everyone
knows it.
"And everyone knows it" is the key phrase here,
folks. But somehow no one knows our puppies are worth more and
we're embarrassed to tell them.
Why is that?
The difference between the sale price of a multi million dollar
stallion and what he's worth as horsemeat on any given day at a
livestock auction is quality. Yet we cannot address this issue in dogs
because we are embarrassed to talk about money and dogs in the same
breath.
Why is that?
OK, I'll tell you, because someone has to come out and
say this sooner or later.
There is a war going on.
Unlike most wars, however, this one actually has three
sides rather than two.
We have Show breeders, who are producing a small number
of purebred dogs.
We have High-Volume breeders who are producing a large
number of purebred dogs.
We have Animal Rights Activists, who believe that neither
group has the right to breed or even own purebred dogs, much less make
a profit at it.
While the first group is busy trying to get rid
of the second group because they don't like the way they breed dogs
(which by the way ain't gonna happen as long as the American public
wants purebred dogs and the first group won't produce them) the
third group is winning the war.
You think I'm making this up?
Then how come we've started saying we "placed"
our puppies instead of sold them?
We talk about the new "adoptive homes" instead of
their new owners…
What's next? Instead of price of a puppy, we'll
charge an "adoption fee?"
What's wrong with this new language?
I'll tell you –
We didn't come up with it, the Animal Rights Activists
did – we are just stupid enough to use it.
We are stupid because it's based on the premise that we have no
right to own dogs.
It is based on the premise that dog ownership is the moral
equivalent of human slavery, and that the species homo sapien has no
right to use any other species for any purpose whatsoever, be it food,
clothing, medical research, recreation or involuntary companionship.
Now, I don't know about you, but my politically
incorrect opinion is:
Our species did not spend the last million years clawing our way to the
top of the food chain to eat tofu. The stuff tastes like shit no matter
how you cook it, and there is absolutely no sense pretending otherwise.
Zoology 101:
Animals who kill other animals for their primary food
source are called predators. Their eyes are generally on the front of
their skulls, they have teeth designed to tear flesh form bone, and a
digestive system designed to digest meat (like us). Animals that live
primarily off vegetation are called herbivores. They have better
peripheral vision, flat teeth for grinding, and the most efficient of
them have multiple stomachs, which we do not (like cows). And lastly,
Animals who live primarily off what other have killed (carrion) are
called scavengers (think about that one long and hard…)
Man like the canid, is a pack-hunting predator, which is
probably why we get along so well. (If that facto bothers you, get over
it…)
How did we get to the top of the food chain?
We are the most intelligent and efficient pack-hunters
ever to suck oxygen from the atmosphere, that's how.
We are certainly intelligent enough to understand that
maintaining that position on this small planet depends on responsible
stewardship, not guilt.
And we are so damned efficient that we can support a
tremendous number of scavengers in our midst. Like the Animal Rights
Activists, for instance…
(Me, I think we should dump the whole lot of them buck
naked in the Boundary Waters and see how well this equalitarian
philosophy of theirs plays out, but that's probably too politically
incorrect for anybody else to consider…sigh…)
So what do we do?
Well, to begin with we need to regain control. The first
way we do this is with language, which is the tool they have been using
on us.
These people who don't want us to "own" dogs
are likening themselves to Abolitionists. That's a fallacy, unless
you accept the premise that dogs are really little humans in fur coats,
which frankly is an insult to a species that has never waged war on the
basis of religious differences.
No, the group they really resemble is the
Prohibitionists-remember them? A particularly annoying bunch of zealots
who firmly believed and somehow managed to convince our duly elected
representatives that alcohol was a bad thing, and any beverage
containing it should be illegal in these United States of America. Very
few Americans actually agreed with this, by the way, but by the time
Congress got its head out of its collective you-know-what, whole new
industry had developed- Organized Crime.
We look back at that whole debacle now and wonder how
anything that stupid and wrongheaded ever happened.
Well, boys and girls, in the inimitable words of the great
Yogi Berra: Its's Déjà vu all over again…
The Prohibitionists are back.
And once again, we are buying it…amazing
--------------------
ON A PERSONAL NOTE: August 2006
Mrs. Klumb's, opinion piece rings more true today, than it did 4 years
ago when originally penned.
Reading it made me feel liberated!
I never understood why I felt the way I did or why there was a
prevailing attitude that if you were successful breeder, or sold pets,
you were some sort of glutton or capitalist pig, but now I do
understand.
I refuse to do allow AR activists compromise my freedoms.
My dogs are happy, healthy and maintained.
Now the kicker, I have always believed that my dogs must 'pay their own
way' sorry if it sounds harsh. But it is true. They will, through
thoughtful breeding and selling of puppies pay for their health care,
dog food, testing and show careers of the puppies that remain in my
possession. Not that there is a lot of money in breeding, we all know
that, by the time you factor in expenses. My boarding kennel picks up
the rest of the tab.
The fact of the matter is ... I have worked very hard all my life to get
here. Nobody 'gave' me anything. I work hard every day to maintain
what I have...because nobody will 'give' me anything to keep it, or do
it for me.
I don't know why my fellow breeders are embarrassed to admit that they
may come out ahead on the rearing of a purebred litter. Do they want to
be considered the proverbial 'suffering artists' for the sake of
purebred dogs? It is not hard to do a good job when there are rewards.
Why would anyone feel guilty if the reward was monetary? Is it somehow
vulgar to us? Apparently so.
Some 'old time' dog people are critical of those beliefs. I just don't
care what they think. If they think having 3 litters over a 20 year dog
career is noble...fine. I just don't see it that way. If they would
rather dedicate untold hours to breed clubs or national clubs in admin
capacities and leave the breeding to "breeders" then knock yourself
out, the clubs need good dedicated people. If you can do both, great.
We all have our roles, we all fit in somewhere.
I now see that the limited breeding we reputable breeders have been
brainwashed into practicing has had an impact.
The trickle down effect
There are simply not enough well bred dogs to provide to educated puppy
buyers who WANT to deal with a reputable breeder. If we cannot or
refuse to provide the pet buying public with a well bred dog, because
we feel it is unethical to breed them, they are forced to purchase from
backyard breeders or pet stores. (the Martha Stewart analogy in Diane's
piece) Some pet buyers are not willing to wait or to be on a waiting
list for months to find the perfect dog for their family. Simple
economics, supply and demand. Supply gets low prices go up.
In addition, by keeping our puppy prices comparable to the BYB we are
not distinguishing ourselves from those who offer lesser quality or are
less knowledgeable about our breed(s). The BYB's or pet stores are NOT
our competition. There is no comparison. By pointing out the
differences to a buyer you are educating them. That is your job as an
advocate of well bred purebred dogs. If they still want a bargain price
then they will learn the hard way, that you get what you pay for.
Because we still have health issues in our well bred purebreds that
does not make them worth less. That is the whole point of health
clearances. We do the best we can do and warranty our puppies. Note I
said warranty and not guarantee. There is a difference and I will leave
that for another discussion.
The other problem is AKC's registrations are down. Although they are a
non profit organization, they still must make money to maintain the
services we desire from them. Limited registrations have also had a
tremendous impact. The AKC now has competition from other registries and
are simply looking for a way to remain in the black and to continue to
exist. A simple fact is: The AKC is a business looking for a way to
remain solvent. While you may not agree with some of their decisions,
you have to look for the root cause of why they are making them.
Somehow we must find balance.
As a business owner I provide needed and appreciated services to the
residents in my area, and they pay me to do it, I do not feel guilty
taking payment for those services. As a breeder, I breed very nice
dogs, sold at a fair price, and I don't feel guilty about accepting
money for them.
Does your Doctor feel guilty taking your money for curing you of
illnesses? NO. Does he give away his services for a lesser price or
free because he is ethical and moral and took an oath? NO
Seems to me that every person to whom I must pay money to for goods and
services, has gladly taken my money, from my Doctor down to the
plumber, in fact they probably smile all the way to the bank. I have
never seen embarrassment or guilt. I refuse to feel guilty about being
an small integral part of how our country works. I am proud of my
business, of the fruits of my labor, of my dogs, of any accomplishment
that I have struggled to attain.
It has not given me any advantages in the show ring or in puppy sales.
I've done that on my own, through the hard work and doing things the
right way.
So should the rest of you be proud and guilt free too? YOU BET.
I agree with Mrs. Klumb. The AR activists are out to get breeders, and
handlers, down to the smallest hobby kennel, they want to dictate how
we do what we love to do, in any form, be it dogs or another hobby or
profession, they are communists. It totally goes against everything I
(we?) believe in. It totally goes against the principals this country
was founded on and our freedoms. Somehow we have let their fanatical
views intertwine and take root and sprout, they have corrupted the
thinking of breeders. I honestly never thought about why dog people have
the attitude they do, until I read Diane's piece. The AR people have
made us feel guilty about being successful breeders by their rhetoric.
Their extremist views lead them to believe that somehow our dogs are
suffering because of it. They would LOVE for dog shows to end, breeding
to end... and your rights as an individual to pursue your happiness to
come to a screeching halt.
We ought to be very careful. Once you have lost your rights it will be
difficult or impossible to get them back. Breed specific legislation is
just the beginning and it is a slippery slope. Let it be said that this
problem does not just affect dogs, from Alpaca breeders, birds, cats,
and llamas to livestock ...the list is long. The AR activists won't
stop at canine legislation, that is just their foot in the door because
we are the biggest target.
Once they are successful with nailing the dog people with canine
legislation, they will keep going, because they are fanatics and will
not be satisfied with a stopping a single group. Get us, and the rest
will fall like a house of cards.
With that being said, if you do not agree with me...that is within your
rights. Leave me to embrace my choices without criticism, because since
I last checked I still have them.
Thank you Diane Klumb for having the courage to write and PUBLISH this
piece, I am only sorry that I did not read it sooner...
Gina
