Will the real Ingrid Newkirk please stand up...

[RedyreRottweilers]

PART 1

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008


Newkirk, after a lobotomy.....

http://k9mind.blogspot.com/2008/09/gee-and-i-thought-i-needed-something-to.html

Greetings,
Please read the following article, perhaps copy it and give it to your attending Veterinarian:

"Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete"

http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

Now, I know the following is long but I believe that is well worth the time and effort it takes to read it. I recently received this article and I' m sending it to you all in full. In these days when politics are being discussed in even the most casual circumstances, this is an issue that can be "quite stimulating" to say the least!

Do you know the real PETA and Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
An editorial by Alice Fix


This is a statement made by Ingrid Newkirk, the President of PETA: " I don't use the word 'pet'. I think it's speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus cats and dogs ( artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symb iotic relationship - enjoyment at a distance." The Harper's Forum Book Jack Hitt,ed.,7/6/89, p.223

It is interesting that Ms. Newkirk used the word "speciesist" Allwords.com defines that word as follows: 1. The discrimination against, and exploitation of, animals by humans in the belief that humans are superior to all other species of animals and can therefore justify putting them to their own use. One of the animal rights mantras is that all animals are created to be equal to all humans, and should have the same rights as humans. Just in case it still isn't clear what their agenda is, here are a few more quotes from Ingrid Newkirk:

"One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. (Dogs) would pursue their natural lives in the wild... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV." - The Chicago Herald, 3/1/05
" In the end, I think it would be lovel y if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether." Newsday, 2/21/07

Ms. Newkirk has very close ties with several groups identified by the FBI as known terrorist groups, such as Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The animal rights group are very well organized, and when you check closely, you will see many of the same names sitting on the boards of these radical groups. They are intertwined and closely linked through their finances, and the work that they do.

PETA operates on an annual budget of $29,000,000 Most of this is through donations made by ordinary citizens that don't know the real work of PETA. Many people think that they are out to save the lives of animals after seeing all of their ads on TV and the newspapers. That is why millions are donated to them each year.

In Virginia, the home state of PETA, in 2004, PETA adopted out 361 animals and euthanized 2,278, according to their records ( ww w.nokillnow.comPetaDVACreporting.pdf)

Those figures aren't good. That means that they euthanize 86.3% of their animals and only adopt out 13.7%. These figures come directly from PETA's Annual Report and from their 2004 Tax Return.It doesn't seem that they used that $29 million for the betterment of the majority of the animals that they came in contact with.So where is the money going? It is being spent for publicity to raise more money for one thing. It is also being used for legislative purposes. They have placed key people in city governments all over the country to try to influence legislation to take your pet ownership away. And they are having a lot of success with it.

You need to understand the basic difference between the "animal welfare" groups and the "animal rights" groups. Although the names might sound like they have the same objectives, there is a big difference.Animal welfare groups are working to see that all animals are treated humanely. Anim al rights groups are working to see that all ownership of animals comes to an end.

 

[RedyreRottweilers]

PART 2

As I said, PETA has close ties with many other organizations. One of these organizations is the Humane Society of the United States. (HSUS) People donate millions to the HSUS each year, thinking that their money is going to save the lives of millions of animals. Nothing could be further from the truth.The HSUS does not own a single animal shelter anywhere in the country. Although many shelters have the word Humane Society in their names, they are not associated in any way with HSUS. The HSUS does not sponsor any spay or neuter clinic anywhere in the country. They do donate a very small percent of their annual budget to a few local humane societies, around$2 million annually, which just happens to be less than the amount that they spend in travel each year. Their major money is spent on fund raising and legislative activity. In 2005, they spent $28 million for public mailings, $6 million in vegan education, $10 million in legislative campaigns and litigation. Their income for that year was close to $125 million.

The HSUS was founded in 1954 as an animal welfare organization.By the early 1980's, just about the same time as PETA was founded, they began to change into an animal rights organization. In the 1990's, the personnel began to change to better fit with their new purpose, and today many of the personnel have ties to PETA, including the current President, Wayne Pacelle.
This is an interesting quote from Wayne Pacelle: "we have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock through selective breeding... One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Animal People News 5/1/03

When you combine other statements that he has made, with the above statement, in my opinion the meaning of this statement is that if we could spay and neuter all animals, we could eliminate pet ownership within one generation. "One generation and out" would mean to me that they are gone and are eliminated in only one generation.

Quietly sitting back and maybe not being aware, we are now allowing the HSUS to make presentations at our local schools, with the definite purpose to educate our children about how bad pet ownership is, to indoctrinate children to the thought that animals should be free and not kept as pets. They are doing this in the same way that they have infiltrated city councils and local governments all across the county, quietly and matter-of-factly.

Shortly after taking office, Pacelle announced a merger with the FUND For Animals which have assets of over $20 million, and the Doris Day Animal League. The combined group estimated its 2005 budget at "over $95 million" and also announced the formation of a new "political organization" which will "allow for a more substantial investment of resource s in political and lobbying activities. (www.activistcash.com/organization-overview.cfm/oid/136)

So that is where we find ourselves today. With HSUS and PETA combines annual budgets of over &124 million for political and lobbying efforts to take away our rights to own animals. And that figure does not include the many splinter organization that have been formed from those two major organizations. We are in an uphill battle now, and it will be the fight of our lives to keep our rights to own pets.

They are going at it from many different angles.One way is to get Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) passed. The banning of Pit-Bulls all 0ver the country is a good example. That has caught on like wild fire. The animal rights groups have said that if they can just get one breed banned, then it will be easy to add others to it at a later date, until eventually all breeds are banned.

Another way that they are going about is to have mandatory spay and neuter laws in place.

Just think about it: if all animals are spayed and neutered, when they die,there will be no more domestic animals.Those same words have been said by Wayne Pacelle, the President of HSUS. They have a very well thought out and planned agenda, and they are counting on the ignorance of the American people to get their agenda accomplished. Well guess what: Ignorance can be overcome by education.,The American people may be ignorant about the facts, but they are not stupid.
They can be educated.

We were ignorant before 9-11, and look what effect that had. It caused all Americans to become educated and unite and fight to prevent that from happening again.The difference here is that we are being attacked from within our own country. We are under strong attack by animal rights groups, and I hope that we don't just st and by and allow it to happen.

The animal rights groups are publicly stating that we need to get laws passed so that they can close down all the puppy mills and commercial breeding facilities that have their animals living in inhumane conditions. Just about everyone would agree with the idea that animals should be treated humanely. But that is just the vehicle that they are using to try to do away with all animal ownership, period.
And that is not a statement that they are being all that public about.

You can become active in this fight by telling your friends and neighbors what is going on. You can be an instrument of education. You can also fight this kind of legislation when it is presented in your area. Go to the City Council meetings and make your voice heard. Write letters to the state and federal government officials to offer your services to be on any animal related committee. In short, get the word out to any and all of your friends tha t own pets. Let them know what is going on. If enough people stop funding the animal rights organizations, we can put them out of business. There is not much that they can do without operating funds.
The next time you think about making a donation to any of these organizations, you better think long and hard about whether you really want your money being spent to take away your rights.

PETA
Humane Society Of The United States
Farm Sanctuary
Fund For Animals
Doris Day Animal League
Earth Save
Green Peace
Physicians For Responsible Medicine
Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
Friends Of Animals
In Defense of Animals
PAWS

Right now the HSUS has started their "First Strike Campaign".
I find that an interesting choice of names.
At http://www.visualthesaurus.com they define first strike as follows:

First Stike: An attack that is intended to seize or inflict damage on or destroy an objective.

Most people think that "an attack" is on inhumane treatment of animals. They still don't know it is an attack to take your animals away from you.
Last year over 10 million people donated money to the HSUS because of their massive spending on advertising. Most of those 10 million people had no idea what their money was actually going to support.

Better places to donate your money that will fight for your rights to own animals are listed below. These groups are working hard to protect you right to own animals, and to expose the true agenda to much of the animal legislation going on all over the country.

National Animal Interest Alliance
http://www.naiaonline.org/Sportsmen's And Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
http://www.saova.org/
American Dog Owners Association
http://www.adoa.org/index.cfm
U S Sportsman Alliance
http://www.ussportsmen.org/

You can either make your donations work for you or against you. That decision is yours to make.

This article first appeared in the March, 2007 issue ( Volume V Issue 2) of the Rocky Mountain Wrinkle, the newsletter of the Centennial Shar-Pei Club, Inc. Any reference to this article must give full credit to the Rocky Mountain Wrinkle, and the Centennial Chinese Shar-Pei Club, Inc, This appears with permission to cross post as written by the original author.

 

[Bunny82]

Thanks for posting Red, more people need to know what the AR's true agenda is.

 

[J's crew]

I reallly need help educating an older family member that supports both HSUS & Peta. This article helps tremendously. No matter what I tell her she seems to think that only puppymills care and doesn't see the big picture.

Do you have any other really good links that show the true colors of Ingrid Newkirk? TIA.

 

[bubbatd]

Do they want me to turn Ollie loose with a Hobo bag and say " Go back to the wild boy !! No more bed with Grammy , no more car-car , no more watching from the futon , no more treats , Peta says that you'd be better off ! "

 

[Amstaffer]

I believe animals do have rights and thus I am an "animal rights" person....it is too bad that wack jobs like PETA have hijacked the phrase "animal rights" to become some extremist and illogical ideology.

Its also too bad they divide the animals lovers of the world like they do.

 

[RedyreRottweilers]

I believe in animal welfare.

Never animal rights.

JMO of course.

 

[Angelique]

That woman is a total whack job who found a cause.

 

[Amstaffer]

I believe in animal welfare.

Never animal rights.

JMO of course.

I think for the most part we are talking semantics. I think the reason that suddenly a lot of people have the problem with the idea of animals have innate rights is because of wackos like PETA.

 

[RedyreRottweilers]

NOT semantics at all.

If dogs are EVER endowed with rights, we as dog owners are history.

If dogs are ever moved to be something other than property, we have had it.

I am all for animal WELFARE. I will NEVER be for animal rights. Not now, not ever.

 

[Amstaffer]

The reason I say semantics is that I believe that a dog has a right to health care, the right to proper nutrition and to be free of obvious physical and mental abuse. Those are things that I believe dogs have rights too. If you want to call that animal welfare to avoid legal problems later....cool but to me they are rights.

A right by any other name is still a right....IMHO

 

[Pops2]

possessing a right is predicated on being able to understand and assert it. for example if i do not like what a politician stands for, i can go out into a public forum and state this in an attempt persuade others to act w/ me in unison.
animals not being sentient cannot assert their "rights" therefore they cannot posses them.

 

[Amstaffer]

possessing a right is predicated on being able to understand and assert it. for example if i do not like what a politician stands for, i can go out into a public forum and state this in an attempt persuade others to act w/ me in unison.
animals not being sentient cannot assert their "rights" therefore they cannot posses them.

Your rights have nothing to do with your ability to understand or assert it.

Small children, mentally challenged and insane people and people who are uneducated people often can't understand their rights but still have all the rights of any other well informed person. The link between understanding and having rights is a non-sequitur argument created to make us feel better about what we do.

I believe that with the dog we (humans) entered a social contract with them several thousand years ago that we both have benefited from. Because of this "contract" we as a species have become much more successful and the dog actually has change genetically; so many of them can no longer provide for themselves thus we need to provide the things I mentioned early.

I am not suggesting dogs be let loose to enjoy their "freedom" that is something that would break our social contract. We need to continue to stay together and both of us continue to uphold the bargain that our ancestors made. We need each other.

 

[Pops2]

children understand better than you think and definitely understand as they grow, the mentalli ill or damaged are sentient beings, if they were not damaged they could understand their rights. on a side note the seriously mentally ill do not have the same rights as the rest of us but do comprehend many that do have and can address them. the mentally ill & mentally damaged only have rights now because society agreed to protect them the same as everyone else. this was not always true. look up eugenics and you'll see what i mean.

animals are not sentient beings, damaged or not they cannot comprehend their "rights" as such they cannot possess them.

 

[Lilavati]

children understand better than you think and definitely understand as they grow, the mentalli ill or damaged are sentient beings, if they were not damaged they could understand their rights. on a side note the seriously mentally ill do not have the same rights as the rest of us but do comprehend many that do have and can address them. the mentally ill & mentally damaged only have rights now because society agreed to protect them the same as everyone else. this was not always true. look up eugenics and you'll see what i mean.

animals are not sentient beings, damaged or not they cannot comprehend their "rights" as such they cannot possess them.

Dogs ARE "sentient" meaning "feeling" beings, they just aren't "sapient" meaning "wise" or "intelligent," in a human sense, beings. Sorry, must correct that one, drives me nuts. The reason animals were refered to as not "sentient" for years was because of the obviously false, and now proven false, contention that they do not have feelings.

However, the thing about rights is correct. A right adheres to a being that can enforce it, or will be able to enforce it, or should, where circumstances different, be able to enforce it. Adults can enforce their rights, therefore they have them. Children, who are adults in waiting, have rights, because one day they will be able to enforce them (that's why the many of the rights that adhere to children "toll" until they are 18 and can claim them, for example some rights to sue). The disabled, and those who have lost their facilties due to age, are those who should, being human, be able to enforce their rights, but due to circumstance are unble to do so.

A dog does not have a right to care, because a dog can not enforce that right. However, a human has a duty to provide that care for the dog, because the human has the corresponding right to own the dog. Rights and duties come in pairs. The dog has no rights because he or she can not enforce them, and even if a working dog, has no "duties" in a legal sense. Humans, however, have both rights and duties . . . and the right to own a dog corresponds with the duty to care for one. That's sort of the legal framework. The moral framework is basically we made dogs dependent on us, and as individuals make indvidual dogs dependent on us, therefore we have an obligation to care for them, since they can no longer care for themselves, and, further, have provided humanity with vital services for thousands of years.

It is unfortunate that the word "right" has been tainted by AR though. Although wrong in a legal sense, we tend to use it colloquially to mean "an entitlement" and a dog is entitled to care because someone has a duty to provide it. But we have to catch ourselves from using it in that informal sense, or else PETA leaps out screaming "Ah-ha!!" and annoucing that we agree animals have legal rights, which they do not.

 

[HoundedByHounds]

Lilavati...as always....extremely well put and informative. That is a great way to explain what legal rights...actually are.

I am for animal welfare...NOT animal rights. Not semantics whatsoever.

 

[Domestika]

I am sure I'm in the great minority, but I agree with the premise in general that animals shouldn't be kept as property. Of course I own animals and will continue to do so, but I do see the value in striving towards a great reduction in the number of animals born into human ownership.

I don't find the article, however, particularly compelling. I think it's quite disjointed and poorly written. And I think when you start using terms like "they're indoctrinating our children" you're moving away from educating and into hate- and fear-mongering. That is a powerful and politically charged accusation; "indoctrinating" the youth. It's a scare tactic.

And, on the whole, I believe that groups like PETA and other animal rights/welfare groups (whether or not you agree with the entire scope of their philosophy) are still doing far more good than harm. The article makes it sound like if you support animal rights you're somehow supporting animal death, which isn't the case at all.

I think one point that this article unfairly insinuates is that PETA, and other groups that share the "no pet" philosophy, is looking to take your animals from you or EXTERMINATE YOUR BELOVED PETS. Yes, their extremely lofty hope is that domestic companion species will cease to exist once we stop producing them. But they aren't wishing death on your pets or taking away your rights and freedoms.

PETA does not expect in a million billion years that domestic animals will go extinct or that there is a hope in hell that they will be able to get anywhere near accomplishing that task. Their party line may be "animal ownership is wrong", but of course they're going to set their goal as high as they can possibly make it. They know that, at best, in a thousand years they might get half way there, and I think that would be a fine place to be.

Truthfully, if a law preventing animal ownership meant that not another domestic animal would be abused, neglected, overbred, undersocialized and left to die a horrible death after a miserable life, I would happily forego owning animals of my own. I can see value in stopping animal ownership to save the 1 out of 10 animals (a very generous estimate) alive right now who is living in misery and, given the choice, would probably rather not exist.

HOWEVER, this is just MY OPINION and I fully support and respect the opinions of people who do not agree.

Oh, and I think mentioning 9-11 in an article about animal rights is just cheap as hell.

 

[RedyreRottweilers]

You are not on our side, then, Domestika.

When no one can own animals in 10 or 15 years, maybe you will understand why this is so serious.

Recently AR people tried to murder a dog advocate in Texas.

Britain is implementing nationwide breeding restrictions.

Docking has been outlawed nearly globally.

Many breeds are outlawed or restricted.

If people like you who have access to the real information hold the opinions that animals are not property and deserve rights, and that if outlawing all animal ownership would then prevent any and all abuse, we are all f*cked.

 

[RedyreRottweilers]

Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 12:23 PM CDT

A Call Out to Midwestern Animal Rights Activists
Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 06:02 PM CDT
Contributed by: ChicagoADL

Animal RightsThis summer, Animal Defense League Chicago, in conjunction
with the Activist Alliance at Roosevelt University, will be hosting
MENDING THE HEARTLAND: Building A Unified Midwestern Animal Liberation
Movement. We are calling for all interested animal rights organizers
and activists to come to Chicago, July 25th through 27th, 2008 to come
together and brainstorm, learn, discuss, and create.

MENDING THE HEARTLAND: Building a Unified Midwestern Animal Liberation
Movement

A call out for organizers, workshop proposals and attendees.

This summer, Animal Defense League Chicago, in conjunction with the
Activist Alliance at Roosevelt University, will be hosting MENDING THE
HEARTLAND: Building A Unified Midwestern Animal Liberation Movement. We
are calling for all interested animal rights organizers and activists to
come to Chicago, July 25th through 27th, 2008 to come together and
brainstorm, learn, discuss, and create.

What do we need in order for this to happen?

We need you!

The first open planning meeting for the conference will be announced
soon. We invite all individuals and groups interested in organizing for
the conference to attend this open meeting to help with the every day
details of the conference, along with approving workshops, getting
sponsors, etc. While we at ADL Chicago hope the conference will be a
melding of organizations and individuals, we are organizing this
conference along 4 main principles, outlined and explained below in our
mission statement.

Additionally, we are looking for workshop presenters! Proposal
submissions will be due in June, more information will be posted soon.

Website and mailing list coming soon!

Mending the Heartland Mission Statement:

The purpose of Mending the Heartland: Building a Unified Midwestern
Animal Liberation Movement is to attempt to build bridges between
grassroots activist groups around the Midwest so that we can begin to
work together more closely on animal rights issues. We in Chicago have
noticed that on the coasts there seems to be much more interaction
between groups from various cities to combine their efforts, help
support each others' actions and generally offer more support to one
and other as animal rights activists. While this is harder to do in the
Midwest, due to the distances between cities, we feel it is both
possible and necessary for activists in this region to come together
and network so that we can learn from each other and become more effective in our activism, both as individual activists and as a more united
animal rights movement.

The hope is that by building more solidarity amongst the various groups
scattered across the Midwest, we will be able to help strengthen our
movement and more effectively fight for animal liberation. Be that by
refining our own regular events to be more effective, or by coming
together more often for large scale, multi-group sponsored events.


We at ADL Chicago wanted this conference to be shaped and organized by
a variety of organizations and people around the Midwest so as to include
voices other then our own. However, we also don't want the organizational process to be crippled by infighting. For that reason and in an attempt to avoid infighting in the organization of this conference, we at ADL Chicago have written up a mission statement to outline the ethics and tactics this conference supports and what issues will be discussed at the event. It is not mandatory that everyone organizing for this conference be in lock step agreement on every issue raised, but it is necessary that all organizing groups, workshop presenters, sponsors or whoever else are aware that these issues will be being discussed at the conference and at the very least are willing and comfortable to be a part of the conference knowing that the following issues will be raised over the course of the weekend:

* A dedication to liberation, not welfarism:

This conference stands for complete animal liberation, not "bigger
cages, longer chains" and the workshops, sponsors and presenters must
reflect that ethic. We feel that many of the national animal rights
organizations have started down a road that only reinforces the
property status of animals and does nothing to challenge the industries we are opposing or the mindsets we are attempting to change. Topics such as
these and critiques of the larger animal rights movement will be
present at this conference as we feel that combating tactics that we feel are
harmful to the furtherance of animal rights is just as important as
implementing the tactics we feel are effective.

* A commitment to ending all forms of oppressions:

While this may be first and foremost an animal rights conference, we
believe all forms of oppression to be interlinked. Many people believe
that other issues (such as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) should be
put aside when fighting for the rights of animals. We believe that far
too often issues such as these are ignored by our movement in an
attempt to appear more "unified" and that this single-mindedness is not only
unethical and short sighted, but also corrosive to our movement. We are
specifically inviting and preparing for populations that are not often
included (or assimilated and therefore, in a way, silenced) in the larger animal rights movements, especially in the Midwest: women; people
of color; transgender and gender variant people; queer people/people of
varying sexual preferences and orientation; and parents and other
guardians of children. As such, we seek to have workshops highlighting
the connections between all forms of oppression and putting our
movements shortcomings on these issues under the magnifying glass. We
believe that criticism and reflection on oppressive behaviors within
our movement is essential in order to combat those problems. In keeping
with this ethic, oppressive behavior will not be tolerated at the
conference. Any conference attendees who behave in oppressive manners towards others will be asked to leave.

* An Open Support For Direct Action And The Animal Liberation Front:

This conference will stand up openly in support of the Animal
Liberation Front. It is our belief that the actions of the ALF are essential
elements of the fight for animal liberation and this conference will
feature workshops and presenters that reflect that belief.

* Law Enforcement/ Government Officials Are Not Welcome/Implementing
Security Culture:

We understand this is a hard one to enforce, but felt it necessary to
point out that we want to do everything we can to implement security
culture at this event. As such, no police officers, FBI agents or any
other such government official is welcome at the event. Please note
however, that this is nearly impossible to enforce and with the
scrutiny placed on the animal rights movement by the government, they are almost certain to be there. Keep this in mind and remember that loose lips
sink ships.

ADL Chicago: http://chicago.animaldefense.info/

 

[RedyreRottweilers]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2089/23/5/3

The Kennel Club is launching a complete review of every pedigree dog breed in the UK in a move that will have far-reaching benefits for the health of many breeds. It has also called on the government to give it the statutory powers to clamp down on breeders who fail to make a dog’s health their top priority.

A breed health plan will be coordinated for each of the UK’s 209 pedigree breeds and will benefit from the extensive research that has been funded by the Kennel Club in conjunction with renowned veterinary research centres over the past 40 years. This will include updated breed standards to ensure that no dog is bred for features that might prevent it from seeing, walking and breathing freely. Judges will be fully briefed on the new breed standards so that only the healthiest dogs are rewarded in the show ring.

The Kennel Club is releasing the first of these new breed standards today, for the Pekingese, and has taken a tough line with the breed following extensive and abortive consultations. This is set to radically improve the health of the Pekingese which for nearly a hundred years was bred to have a flat face; a feature which can lead to breathing problems; under the new health plan the breed will be required to have a defined muzzle.

The breed health plans, which are scheduled to be completed by early next year, will also incorporate the results of a thorough, ongoing analysis of the health status and genetic diversity of each breed, drawing on results from the world’s largest dog health survey, conducted by the Animal Health Trust and funded by the Kennel Club Charitable Trust in 2004. This will ensure that breeders and buyers are aware of the health tests that should be carried out for each breed. The final part of the plans will look at ways breeders can expand the gene pool of the breed.

In order to ensure that the plans are effective and reach all dogs, the Kennel Club has called on the government to give it statutory powers to make its established Accredited Breeder Scheme compulsory throughout the country. If successful, this would mean that all breeders who are not part of the scheme and who have not officially confirmed their willingness to follow the health standards set by the Kennel Club would be unable to produce or sell puppies within the law.

Additionally, breed clubs are now required to adopt the Kennel Club’s Code of Ethics, to ensure that their practices fall in line with Kennel Club policy for putting the health and welfare of puppies first. This includes a clause that explicitly forbids the compulsory culling of healthy puppies.

To complement these steps the Kennel Club is developing plans for a new Canine Genetics Centre. This will be run in conjunction with the Animal Health Trust, confirming the Kennel Club’s commitment to research into inherited diseases and the provision of DNA testing programmes which identify the genes underlying inherited health problems.

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, said: “The groundswell of public attention on the very important matters surrounding dog breeding is a welcomed momentum that will enable us to drive through, with added urgency, new and extended initiatives that will help to safeguard the health of our pedigree dogs. We have been listening and agree with the general public’s view that more needs to be done.

“Steps such as our breed health plans will enable us to ensure that the health of every dog is the number one priority and we are taking a tougher line with breed clubs by adjusting those breed standards that fail to promote good health. By asking the government for statutory powers we will be able to take a tougher line with all breeders and breed clubs that fail to abide by our high standards. This in turn will enable us to extend the reach of our Accredited Breeder Scheme, which is the quality control mechanism within our registration process, so that all dogs will be bred by people who abide by our stringent rules and regulations for the breeding of healthy, happy dogs.

“We have been working hard in recent years to identify and address health problems that exist in dogs, and we are taking advantage of the opportunities that advances in science have given us to improve dog health. We look forward to continuing our work with various institutions and organisations that share the same objective: to protect the health and welfare of all dogs.”