PETA Dresses Like KKK for Westminster Dog Show

[mikeyx]

PETA and I agree that there is something wrong in the idea that pure bred dogs are more beautiful and most desirable than "mongrels" and that it is wrong that, as a result, mixed breed dogs are often treated worse by humans.

The idea that discriminating against certain type of dogs is equivalent to racial prejudice, however, is just bonkers.

Human beings aren't dogs. There are about a million things you can do to a dog that you can't do to a person. African-Americans aren't dogs. Treating a black person badly because of the color of his or her skin is not the same as treating a dog badly because of his or her breed.

PETA and soylent green, think about it......

 

[Aerik]

Ugh. I saw this all last week and I'm still just as mad.

It's not the first time PeTA has decided to compare animals to just black people. They've also compared animals to holocaust victims. Then there's their constant misogyny, using their women and any models they can hire as sex objects (no wonder Bill Maher and Pam Anderson are PeTA leaders).

 

[GreNME]

Eh, I'm going to go with EeneyMineyMoe on this one. You rarely see purebred dogs wind up in pounds or animal shelters, or become strays. Though it's not really out of any conscious "racism" (you can't imagine how hard I rolled my eyes just typing that word), but for a much more basic reason:

Like Cleon said, mutts are more likely to be in shelters and more likely to be raised on a cheaper budget than purebreeds. It's because owners view their pets' pedigree as a status symbol and value a pure dog more and invest more in a pure-bred dog than they would in a shelter mutt.

That is completely misleading, and a myth that gets thrown out there whenever this topic comes up. First, believe it or not, there are far more abandoned or confiscated pure bred dogs than you realize that are usually picked up by breed-specific rescue groups, though those groups also tend to pick up mongrels with characteristics indicative of the breed they deal with because they can adopt out or foster the animals better than municipal shelters can. The Labrador rescue in any given city is usually filled beyond capacity, with at least half of the dogs lab-something-else mixes in their number of currently-fostering or adoptable dogs. Second, just by sheer number there are way more mongrels out there than there are pure bred dogs, because the pure bred dogs tend to come from breeders and there's no way they can match the number of accidental pregnancies/births from different mixed breeds. You're using misleading numbers to try to argue a point that is not supported by the actual number of dogs out there.

Purebred dogs cost money. Quite a bit of it, too. People who invest hundreds or thousands of dollars in an animal are, by and large, going to take better care of it than someone who gets a mutt for $20 from the local shelter.

Hundreds of thousands? Again, I call BS. Most homes will spend a few thousand in healthcare through most of a dog's life, but veterinarians make a profit from volume, not from costly treatments for only pure bred dogs. Any responsible dog owner takes their mixed breed dog into the vet just as much as a pure bred owner. Unless you have some kind of evidence substantiating the claim otherwise, then you're just making this up. I could even post my own anecdote about how we've spent just as much (more, actually) on our rescues at home than we did on the pure bred dog we had, but rather than argue through anecdote I'm putting the onus on you to qualify that assertion with fact.

Think of it like cars...Someone who buys a brand-new BMW 7-series is more likely to take care of it than someone who buys a 20-year-old used Honda Civic.

So yeah, I'd agree that purebreds are probably treated better than mixed breeds, but it's not doggie "racism" (gah!), just simple economics.

Again, you are speaking from either ignorance or using misleading fact. The money that goes into "buying" a pure bred dog is the money that's typically already been invested in caring for the health, food, and other care for the dog prior to getting it. When you're adopting from the shelter, you're basically paying the fee to take the dog out of line for being euthanized, a completely different environment altogether. You're twisting the economics in order to make a point that is not supported by the real economics of the situation.

-----

Edit: To be fair, pure breeds go through alot, too. Being bred like crazy when they are the flavor of the month and then falling in popularity ends up with alot of them abandoned. And they are more likely to suffer from congenital defects.

More BS. Either show some facts or please stop pulling assertions out of thin air. Pure bred dogs are not bred "like crazy" because most dogs only come into season once or twice a year, and usually will not take every time even if someone was trying to use them as a puppy factory. People that use dogs as puppy factories are definitely not the people who would even be tolerated in places like dog shows, because the puppy millers are one of the top targets of ire from the dog show/breeding people.

Please stop making accusations up and equating those who are irresponsible with those of us who try to fight such people. You're not helping your argument by making such misleading and false statements, and you're going to continue to show how little you know about the facts by trying to pull things from thin air like that.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

These aren't straw men. These are the extreme positions PETA actually takes- if they had it their way, there would be no animal shows, zoos, no horse races, no animal testing of any kind, even no glue traps sold at Home Depot. It would be different if they were a reasonable animal welfare organization that advocated for reasonable measures to prevent abuse of animals. They aren't.

Allright then, you can't euthanize a person if they are too old, too ill or physically handicapped because you deem it necessary. You can't own another person. You can't demand that a person not enter your buisness or property just because that's your policy. You can't abandon a person in a shelter when you can't or won't take care of them any longer. You can do all of these things with a dog.

I'm just angry that PETA compared dog-breeding to racism. That's not fake, that's not made-up - that's something they actually did with this KKK stunt. It's obviously wrong to compare mistreatment of dark skinned people with the mistreatment of a mixed breed or "bad breed" dog and they should be called out on it.

If PETA wants to make the point that dog shows hurt dogs, fine, but they shouldn't pull offensive and insane stunts like that. Arguing such an extreme position totally buries valid objections against animal shows.

 

[GreNME]

These aren't straw men. These are the extreme positions PETA actually takes- if they had it their way, there would be no animal shows, zoos, no horse races, no animal testing of any kind, even no glue traps sold at Home Depot. It would be different if they were a reasonable animal welfare organization that advocated for reasonable measures to prevent abuse of animals. They aren't.

I know they aren't. I know reasonable welfare people, because I'm one of them. Groups like PETA have taken the term "animal rights" and turned it into a stasi-like extremist position, which is why people like me now choose animal welfare as a defining term. Now, to your list:

Allright then, you can't euthanize a person if they are too old, too ill or physically handicapped because you deem it necessary.

A family can have no-resuscitate orders for a loved one, or can take them off life support. Also, the elderly and sick do have a choice of when to refuse medical treatment to keep them alive when they are near death. Ever hear of a hospice? There's not an equal comparison because dogs are not humans, but believe it or not outside of straight euthanasia there are more things that can be done than you implied.

You can't own another person.

Dogs aren't people, nor are they property like a chair. Common misconception, I know, but believe it or not dogs and many other animals already have a protected status that raises them above property but does not equate them with humans. So, unless you're arguing that they should be equal to humans, the point is a non-starter.

You can't demand that a person not enter your buisness or property just because that's your policy.

You can for health/safety or privacy reasons, but not for ethnicity/race/etc. reasons. Try again.

You can't abandon a person in a shelter when you can't or won't take care of them any longer. You can do all of these things with a dog.

Do they have child protective services where you live? Halfway houses, shelters for the homeless, and so on? Dogs can't tell you who abandoned them, while people can. It happens often enough, and I don't approve of it whether it's people or dogs. I do understand, however, that sometimes a home is not capable of taking care of a dog, and in those cases rescues can help (like in the case of one of my dogs).

I'm just angry that PETA compared dog-breeding to racism. That's not fake, that's not made-up - that's something they actually did with this KKK stunt. It's obviously wrong to compare mistreatment of dark skinned people with the mistreatment of a mixed breed or "bad breed" dog and they should be called out on it.

I will say it one more time: there is no such thing as a "bad breed."

If PETA wants to make the point that dog shows hurt dogs, fine, but they shouldn't pull offensive and insane stunts like that. Arguing such an extreme position totally buries valid objections against animal shows.

None of PETA's arguments against dog shows are valid. Did you not read what I said about what a dog show does? You're already operating from a false impression about what they are based on the things you've already said about dog shows. I urge you to find out what dog shows are really about before you object.

 

[Polaris]

Seems to me that it also draws a parallel between some of the tactics of the KKK and some of the tactics of PETA. If I were PETA I'd think that was an uncomfortable comparison.

If you were PETA, apparently you wouldn't think that.

 

[slingblade]

Hundreds of thousands?

No. He said "hundreds OR thousands."

 

[Pardalis]

Isn't the place where pets are treated with the outmost care exactly at this kind of events?

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

None of PETA's arguments against dog shows are valid. Did you not read what I said about what a dog show does? You're already operating from a false impression about what they are based on the things you've already said about dog shows. I urge you to find out what dog shows are really about before you object.

I did and I'm glad most of the people who participate in these events are professional, humane and responsible but the very idea that dogs can be status symbols, that some are better to have than others (which some owners of pure breeds do believe) and that you can use your dog to will prizes for yourself and can train and breed them to perform certain tasks for most of their lives can hurt them. Most dogs and cats are probably no worse off for them but you can't deny that some of the people who participate in these events are deeply nutty and some have messed up ideas about animals. Like the folks shown in the Penn and Teller episode on excessive love of pets- they are clearly doing it for their own gratification.

Anyway, I actually don't believe dog shows should be banned. Horse races probably end up in more animals injured or otherwise harmed and they shouldn't be banned. It's just that they may not be the best thing for all animals.

 

[Cleon]

That is completely misleading, and a myth that gets thrown out there whenever this topic comes up. First, believe it or not, there are far more abandoned or confiscated pure bred dogs than you realize that are usually picked up by breed-specific rescue groups, though those groups also tend to pick up mongrels with characteristics indicative of the breed they deal with because they can adopt out or foster the animals better than municipal shelters can. The Labrador rescue in any given city is usually filled beyond capacity, with at least half of the dogs lab-something-else mixes in their number of currently-fostering or adoptable dogs. Second, just by sheer number there are way more mongrels out there than there are pure bred dogs, because the pure bred dogs tend to come from breeders and there's no way they can match the number of accidental pregnancies/births from different mixed breeds. You're using misleading numbers to try to argue a point that is not supported by the actual number of dogs out there.

Do you have numbers?

Hundreds of thousands?

Or. I said "hundreds or thousands." Not "hundreds of thousands."

And yes, just purchasing a purebred dog can cost hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars. That's not including vet bills, training, grooming, etc.

Again, I call BS.

I would, too.

Most homes will spend a few thousand in healthcare through most of a dog's life, but veterinarians make a profit from volume, not from costly treatments for only pure bred dogs. Any responsible dog owner takes their mixed breed dog into the vet just as much as a pure bred owner. Unless you have some kind of evidence substantiating the claim otherwise, then you're just making this up. I could even post my own anecdote about how we've spent just as much (more, actually) on our rescues at home than we did on the pure bred dog we had, but rather than argue through anecdote I'm putting the onus on you to qualify that assertion with fact.

It's really uncouth to misread someone and then accuse them of "making this up."

Again, you are speaking from either ignorance or using misleading fact. The money that goes into "buying" a pure bred dog is the money that's typically already been invested in caring for the health, food, and other care for the dog prior to getting it. When you're adopting from the shelter, you're basically paying the fee to take the dog out of line for being euthanized, a completely different environment altogether. You're twisting the economics in order to make a point that is not supported by the real economics of the situation.

I'm sure, in your mind, this is a thorough debunking, but in reality, it really doesn't address anything I said.

 

[tyr_13]

Do you have numbers?

Or. I said "hundreds or thousands." Not "hundreds of thousands."

And yes, just purchasing a purebred dog can cost hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars. That's not including vet bills, training, grooming, etc.

My family breeds labs, as my picture clearly shows actually. You can find pure bred dogs in pounds and people who just can't take care of them. We rescued our two boys.

But labs are a very common, fairly cheap breed of dog. But even we sell our puppies for $450. We also interview the families first before we even consider selling them a dog, and they have to come with everyone in their household to get the dog so we can see them interact. We love our dogs very much, but they are expensive to take care of.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What do you actually know about dog breeding outside of AR rhetoric? Do you understand the idea of breeding to a standard and not breeding to create some desired "kind of dogs" just because someone wants one. There are people who do breed "designer" dogs, and as far as I know reputable breeders dislike that practice.

Seems pretty common actually. I have seen interesting comparison shots of cats and dogs of the same breed with the current winners of the breed shown next to winners in that same breed 50 years ago. There seem to be many breeds that are being intentionally breed to have problems.

 

[rwguinn]

My family breeds labs, as my picture clearly shows actually. You can find pure bred dogs in pounds and people who just can't take care of them. We rescued our two boys.

But labs are a very common, fairly cheap breed of dog. But even we sell our puppies for $450. We also interview the families first before we even consider selling them a dog, and they have to come with everyone in their household to get the dog so we can see them interact. We love our dogs very much, but they are expensive to take care of.

Show or Field bred?
IOW, "Will that dawg hunt?"

 

[tyr_13]

Field

 

[GreNME]

No. He said "hundreds OR thousands."

Indeed. I misread. Definitely my mistake there.

-----

Do you have numbers?

You're the one who made the outrageous claim, yet the onus is on me? How about seeing it stated on this page: "Each year, the American Kennel Club registers more than a million purebred dogs of 150 breeds and varieties of dogs. The United Kennel Club registers more than 200 breeds, and worldwide, about 400 breeds are recognized, yet most of the dogs in the world are at least a mixture of two breeds and often a multi-breed combination like the famous 57 varieties of Heinz products." (emphasis mine) There are no discrete numbers of mongrels and mutts in the world because there are so many unknowns with mixed breeds-- there are too many unregistered, too many litters that aren't registered or recorded in any way, and too many that go stray that are unreported-- compared to most specific breeds, who are usually tracked better than driving records. If you want numbers you're not going to get any because there's no population counts-- because no single source for that kind of information (and also because a large portion of it doesn't exist).

So, is that enough information to display for you the misleading nature of the myth?

Or. I said "hundreds or thousands." Not "hundreds of thousands."

And yes, just purchasing a purebred dog can cost hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars. That's not including vet bills, training, grooming, etc.

You're correct that purchasing a dog from a breeder can cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars, but you're not acknowledging the costs of the whelping and health care prior to the person buying the dog. All pups coming from reputable breeders have had their health verified, their care has been taken care of, and steps have been taken to turn over a pup that is without deformity, trauma, or disease. If you want to talk about the puppy millers then hey, I'm on your side and so is pretty much any show breeder out there. People who are making a profit from selling these dogs is doing it wrong and the dogs people get from them are often of questionable health and stability-- those buying from puppy millers are better off getting a mutt or a mongrel.

It's really uncouth to misread someone and then accuse them of "making this up."

Right, instead you're just misrepresenting the facts.

Again, you are speaking from either ignorance or using misleading fact. The money that goes into "buying" a pure bred dog is the money that's typically already been invested in caring for the health, food, and other care for the dog prior to getting it. When you're adopting from the shelter, you're basically paying the fee to take the dog out of line for being euthanized, a completely different environment altogether. You're twisting the economics in order to make a point that is not supported by the real economics of the situation.

I'm sure, in your mind, this is a thorough debunking, but in reality, it really doesn't address anything I said.

That's not a debunking because you're twisting the economics of the situation to fit your conclusion, instead of letting the reality of the economics guide your conclusion. As I already said, the costs involved are missing from your assertions. After the costs of screening out genetic risks, of paying for attempts to breed that don't take, and in many breeds the measures taken screening potential customers-- most real dog breeders don't sell to impulse buyers-- and the number of pre-partum and post-partum steps taken ^[ex.], breeders are lucky to have enough money left over after a sale to pay for a couple of bags of food. So there's nothing to debunk in your statement because you've set up a straw man that has nothing to do with actual dog breeding outside of puppy millers, of which any AKC or other organization-related breeder will tell you they actively discourage. Not everyone doing it is a saint, I'll agree, and some of the people doing it are downright flaky even on their best days, but the comparison you made is far from representative of the situation.

 

[GreNME]

Seems pretty common actually. I have seen interesting comparison shots of cats and dogs of the same breed with the current winners of the breed shown next to winners in that same breed 50 years ago. There seem to be many breeds that are being intentionally breed to have problems.

There are breeds out there like that, and it angers me that the few examples out there are making the practice look that much worse with their harmful behavior. However, even within those breeds (German shepherds are one) there are people within those sub-groups who are working to reverse or discourage the practice, and luckily while the practice may be prevalent in one place it's usually not so everywhere (again, GSDs in Europe aren't facing the same problem as in the US).

Damning the entirety of dog breeding, however, isn't going to solve the problem.

 

[Cleon]

GrenME,

Get back to me when you can skip the hostility, ok? I'm really not interested in a pissing match.

 

[GreNME]

That's fine, Cleon, but can you accept than I've qualified my statement that there are far more mixed breed dogs out there than pure bred dogs? Depending on the region (usually corresponding with population density) the percentage of pure bred dogs in rescue or shelters varies between a large disparity (in low-density) and not much disparity at all (in high-density)-- there was an NAIA (National Animal Interest Alliance) study on national and regional averages. I can't find it at the moment, but if I can I'll post it.

 

[rwguinn]

Field

My kind of guy!
Had a lab who was a great guy. Would apologize if he couldn't find the duck you shot by crawling into the shooter's lap.

Without shaking off first...


He'd even point on quail.

So I guess I am guilty of 3 horrendous sins in PETA's eyes. I hunt, using a dog, and then eat what I shot.
4--I'd tie flies uning the feathers. Damn, I'm a really guilty guy!.

 

[luchog]

Seems to me that it also draws a parallel between some of the tactics of the KKK and some of the tactics of PETA. If I were PETA I'd think that was an uncomfortable comparison.

Considering PETA's stated anti-human viewpoint -- ie. they value animals more than humans -- and their support of domestic terrorst organizations, I don't think they're necessarily going to care about the public perception of such a comparison.