|
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