|
by Dr. Carmen Battaglia Over the years one can find many examples of an event
which at the time seemed small and unimportant only to be later
learned that it had grown large with unintended consequences. It was
the repeated occurrence of these scenarios that eventually led to
the expression, “big things often-times come from small beginnings”.
In this regard there is now, within the dog world, a
chain of events that has been defined as more than just an
annoyance. These are a series of small events that can be described
as a gathering storm but, unlike those of the past, this storm is
being driven by forces that are connected in unusual ways. At its
center is the repeated and effective use of several undefined
labels. They have become the primary tool that fuels these turbulent
winds. The storm is being driven by the fundamental idea that
breeders should do the right thing. The motivating argument for this
comes from the Animal Rights Movement which identifies the
expectation that a responsible breeder would analyze his/her
pedigrees for problems using DNA technology and the other
certifications, tests and protocols that are available (OFA, CERF,
PENN HIP, etc). The idea, of course, is popular but for those who
study these events and how they are used to influence the future, it
seems clear that the conditions are now right for a disaster.
Unfortunately, there is no authority in the dog world who can say
with any certainty how much damage this storm will cause. What is
certain is that it has now reached a level that makes it a clear and
present danger. Storms in a sport, like those in society, are always
risky because they usually bring with them unwanted damage. What has
gone unnoticed about this storm is how the animal rights movement
has used a series of undefined labels to drive the winds that have
already altered and changed the dog world. Until now, most of these
changes have gathered little national interest. Now, however,
through the use of well-crafted labels, they are able to describe a
person, thing or event in either a positive or negative light. Over
the years they have learned how to use the power of the undefined
label to capture the interests and attention of the public, the
clubs and the breeders. The use of labels to drive ideas is not new in an
industrialized society. Advertising agencies and political campaigns
use them to influence policy, regulations and elections. The hotter
the issue, the more dramatic the pitch, and the more clever the
strategy. When the issue is ideological, labels are used to energize
supporters. They are also used on websites to announce the issues
and promote the problems. When combined, they become the important
vehicles for influencing opinions and changing perceptions.
Sociologists call this the “labeling process”. Their studies focus
on the groups and organizations that use the labels to exploit a
situation, target a group or identify a victim. In this regard, the
“labeling process” is best known as an applied method. Studying how
they are used to achieve certain goals involves a search for the
motive and the desired objective. Many times the goal is subtle and
not easily noticeable. Understanding how the change agents use the
“labeling process” is key to understanding how they are able to
drive their programs. This is important in today’s climate because
the breeders seem to enjoy using the undefined labels without ever
knowing their meaning or purpose and, more importantly, who will
become their next victim.
In the past, the most popular use of the undefined
label was to describe the commercial or high volume breeders as
“puppy mills". Other labels were then linked to it. They were called
“overpopulation”, “vicious dogs”, “dangerous dogs”, “responsible dog
owner”, etc. While each of these labels enjoyed widespread
acceptance, none were ever defined. In each case, the fancy and the
public accepted them without any understanding of what they meant or
what they were intended to do. Now, after more than ten years of
use, they are still undefined. For these reasons, it is important to
appreciate who creates the labels (change agents), why they are
using them and what affect they are having on the AKC, veterinary
schools, dog clubs, registrations (stud book), and, ultimately, the
breeders. By design, most of these labels are left vague or
never defined. This reduces the chances for resistance. When catchy
words and phrases are linked to them, many ideas can be pushed to
support their agenda. It is not just the general description given
them that gathers attention, it’s the success they have had
convincing breeders, their clubs and the writers to use undefined
labels. Whether this new label will follow in the footsteps of the
others is yet to be determined. But based on the past, it is safe to
say that we should take this opportunity to understand its
potential. History shows that one of the earliest undefined
labels targeted breeders by calling them “puppy mills". Catchy
phrases were added to describe them as irresponsible individuals who
owned dirty kennels and carried out careless breedings. This label
was then linked to a negative form of animal husbandry as a way to
grow the idea into something bigger. Some of the first uses of this
label focused on the breeders in certain states and cities. It
resulted in changes in policies, zoning, regulations and even
legislation. The strategy being used today closely parallels this
scenario. It focuses on issues the Animal Rights Movement believes
need to be changed. Their current strategy begins with the fancy
(breeders/writers) as they push for acceptance in conversation, at
meetings and on websites. Follow-up efforts are then used to
identify the problem that fits their strategy. This step usually
involves their critic groups who are developing court cases that
will follow. Their use of the law and the courts has already
resulted in a negative and financial impact on hundreds of breeders
and their dog clubs. Their efforts have been effective only because
they are able to create labels the community will accept. In the past, it was only the like-minded groups within
the animal rights movement that were able to function as change
agents. In the beginning they were forced to use negative incentives
and the courts to push their agendas. But over the past 20 years
they have effectively learned how to use legislation and the courts
and the breeders to introduce new changes in zoning, ownership,
breeding rights, care and conditions etc. Typically they use the
argument of “raising the bar”. Sometimes they call it “raising the
standard”. Today, when the term “puppy mill” is used, it quickly
arouses a negative and emotional response. More importantly, it
demonstrates how one undefined label in the hands of a determined
group can manipulate the masses. From the beginning, their goal was to control, limit
and reduce the ownership and breeding rights of the breeders and
those who exhibit purebred dogs. Thus far, they have successfully
done both. What is best known about their efforts is the ripple
effect they are having on the gene pools of many breeds. This is one
of the most dangerous aspects of this new label. The cumulative
effects they are having on registrations cannot be ignored. Related
to this problem is the impact they are having on the gene pools of
the 35 breeds listed in Table 1. The unintended and cumulative
consequence of their efforts continues to gather momentum only
because there is acceptance without understanding. What must be
learned from these experiences is that most of the undefined labels
are used to suggest something good. Later they are used to fit an
agenda that will produce a negative effect. The most dangerous part
of the process is how well they are able to reach beyond the
obvious. In the early stages of acceptance, the critic groups remain
in the background preparing to use the courts as opportunities
present themselves. With this infrastructure in place, the animal
rights groups are able to extend their reach. Their success can now
be measured through declining registrations and the numbers of pups
being sold on limited registrations or on spay/neuter contracts. The
"responsible breeder" label is the vehicle being used to establish a
new kind of husbandry, one that will eventually be guided by new,
tougher quantitative standards. During the initial stages of
implementation, their strategy only whispers about a better way.
They do this by painting a picture of something that is good for
everyone. At the center of their storm is the attention they are
giving to DNA technology and health certifications which most
breeders and their clubs endorse. In their words, a “responsible
breeder” is expected to screen and test all of their stock before
breeding. This idea sounds great on the surface but this is only the
first step. As the breeders and their clubs continue to embrace this
label, the animal rights activist slowly begins to lobby for the
required use of both DNA and health screening. This follow-up step
is called “raising the bar”. It is unfolding one step at a time. We
already have heard their voices asking that more testing be used on
breeding stock. Next they will push for testing as a condition of
breeding and then as a condition to register breeding stock and
their pups. In some quarters, they already are asking that it become
a condition for entry in some AKC venues. As the popularity of the
"responsible breeder” spreads, they will attempt to further extend
their reach into the AKC stud book and the registration system. To
this end, the change agents and their critic groups have already
taken the first step by raising the level of awareness. Some believe
they are ahead of schedule. What is so interesting is how well the
breeders have accepted their ideas.
Notice in Figure 1 how quickly the breeders responded
when they were told that in order to be a "responsible breeder" they
should sell their pups on limited registrations or on spay/neuter
contracts as a way to control “overpopulation” a problem that does
not exist. Figure 1 also shows that after only nine years well over
100,000 dogs each year continue to be removed from the gene pools of
all breeds. Not only has the animal rights movement been able to
encourage breeders to reduce the size of the AKC stud book, they
have identified the "responsible breeder" as their next victim.
Unfortunately, the dog world has not noticed the negative effect
limited registrations and spay neuter contracts are having on
registrations and the stud book. The strategy, thus far, has linked
two ideas together. The first was to convince the breeders that they
could reduce overpopulation. The second was to separate the breeders
and the buyers from the AKC. More than half of all pups sold on
limited registrations and spay/neuter contracts were not being
registered. Both efforts shrink the number of breeders and litters.
Unfortunately, the impact they continue to have on the stud book and
particularly the 35 breeds listed in Table 1 should not be ignored.
These breeds are now registering fewer than 100 litters per year.
The greatest dilemma now comes if this trend continues because it
currently is on schedule to collapse the diversity of several gene
pools and their ability to maintain breed health
(Ostrander). The strength of the winds that are pushing this storm
has been marked and identified. It is heading toward the fancy with
an unusual force. They have already unleashed a new kind of
husbandry which is likely to have a qualitative and quantitative
form of measurement. The plan and the mechanism that is driving this
storm is intended to continue on its path of reshaping the dog world
piece by piece. While these trends seem to be clear, hardly anyone
seems to be noticing. In retrospect, we can now see the true meaning
of the phrase, “big things often-times come from small beginnings”.
More will be said about the plan and the labeling process in the
next article (Part 2). If you would care to express your ideas on
this subject, forward them to me in care of the editor at
k9chron@aol.com
References:
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Carmen L. Battaglia holds a Ph.D. and Masters Degree from Florida State University. He is an author of many articles and several books, an AKC judge, researcher, well known lecturer and leader in the promotion of breeding better dogs. Go to www.breedingbetterdogs.com
|
One of the newest labels gaining in popularity
has been designed to make the breeder its victim and their pups the
target. It’s called the "responsible breeder". What makes this label
so dangerous is the attention it calls to the quality of the pups
produced. What makes it politically correct is the fact that it has
many meanings and interpretations and, most importantly, it offers
everyone who “does the right thing” the opportunity to label
themselves a breeder. Underneath its exterior, however, is the
special emphasis it brings to the quality of the pups being produced
and sold. It assumes that if a pup is of poor quality, unhealthy or
has something wrong, it should not be bred. Most breeders agree with
this notion and respond by selling their pups without AKC
registration papers, or with a limited registration or perhaps a
spay/neuter contract. The underlying assumption is that they are
being “responsible breeders" and would not want to continue to
produce low quality pups given the technology and protocols that are
available. The latter point is key to the strategy. The notion that
the unsound and unhealthy should not be sold for breeding is
fundamental to this label and, with that logic, the best indicator
of whether a breeder is being responsible or not can be tested by
what they produce and how they register it. This method identifies
some breeders as better than other breeders. This scenario salutes
those who breed to produce better quality. In the background,
however, there are some important and very fundamental questions.
For example, why do so many breeders endorse the use of DNA but have
little or no understanding of its uses or benefits and why have only
a small fraction of the breeders actually used it? Why are so many
breeders not trained in the use of DNA testing or the techniques
available for managing the normals, carriers or affected when they
occur in their pedigrees? The animal rights strategy sees this as
opportunity. Their logic suggests that because there is widespread
support for a technology they do not understand or use, the quality
of their litters is not likely to improve. Thus, over time, a
determination can be made as to whether a breed and its breeders are
making progress and thus, being “responsible breeders”. Said another
way, if quality pups are the goal, a responsible breeder can be
measured by how they sell their pups. In retrospect, there is a
lesson to be learned from this simple logic and how, through the use
of undefined labels, the animal rights movement has been able to
create havoc in the world of purebred dogs. 
FIGURE 1. LIMITED REGISTRATIONS