In defense of the Defense of Roy Moore

Let me begin by making it clear that I despised Roy Moore. I actively pled for people in Alabama not to give him the GOP nomination for Jeff Sessions’ seat in the Senate. His brand of conservatism is not my brand of conservatism. To me, he is representative of all the things that make Alabama look like a backwoods state, which is hard for me to say about my home state and a place that I love.

However, I also believe in right and wrong and I deplore this idea that anyone can be ruined by accusations of wrongdoing alone. I have seen it too many times in too many different circumstances.

  1. I have seen several times blue check marks and pundits talk about how creepy it is for a man in his 30s to “date” or hit on girls in their teens and how that adds to the “proof” against him. Okay. It may be considered “creepy” by today’s standards of societal norms, but it hasn’t always been the case. Two of the supposed “accusers” (I put that word in quotes because all I could ascertain from their statements was that they accused him of being a gentleman) even discussed how their mothers thought they were lucky he was interested in them and that he was good husband material. The mothers were apparently right since the man has been married to only one woman for the past 35 +/- years. My Pappy married my Nanny when he was in his mid-20s and she was 13. They were married for 60 years until his death. In high school, I went to school with several married girls, and at least 2 of my teachers were or became married to their former students. This was all in Alabama, and I graduated 25 years ago. That is the type of environment you have to judge Moore’s actions. Was it really so unusual for that society? No. It wasn’t. Not then, but it is unfair to judge a person’s actions outside of the time period from which they happened. I also have ancestors that owned slaves. That would be creepy now, but it wasn’t when they did– it was the norm.
  2. Details in stories matter. The first thing I thought when I read that one of the accusers (14 at the time) talked to Moore on the phone located in her bedroom was that she was lying or misremembering. Nobody in Alabama had phones in their bedrooms in the 70s. She also claimed she couldn’t remember if he gave her wine the 1st or the 2nd time they went to his house, but she definitely remembered telling him she was 14 the 1st time. What girl, being courted by an older guy, in the middle of a date clarifies she is 14? In my experience, teenage girls lie to make boys think they are older. It may be true, but it may not. She may be lying or she could just be misremembering or had been coached. Who knows? I don’t and you don’t. Even in her account, the inappropriate behavior stopped at her insistence and he took her home as she asked. On his next call, she made an “excuse” as to why she couldn’t meet with him. Again, the idea that she needed an excuse seems coached. He stopped calling and never bothered her again. Those are not the actions of a predator. She does not say that he ever threatened her or her family– a predator, who had done something wrong, would.
  3. Which brings me to lady number 5. Her story hits all of the checkpoints for predatory behavior that none of the other girls’ stories did. He threatened her. He was rough with her. He tried to force her head into his lap. He locked her in the car. All of these actions are predatory. They are abusive. They are actions of assault and intimidation. NONE of those elements were in the accounts by the first 4. This fifth account also happened apparently 2 years earlier (I believe the yearbook was from ’77 and the other accounts were from ’79). Predators DO NOT de-escalate in behavior. They escalate. Just watch or talk to any criminal profiler and you will see predators behave in patterns and those patterns escalate into more and more aggressive behavior. They do not de-escalate. They do not become less aggressive. If he used force and threats in ’77 he would NOT have stopped at the word “No” and not threaten the younger girl in ’79. Add to the fact that this woman contacted Gloria Allred and had an NYC press conference, and describes behavior that hits EVERY hallmark action of a sexual predator when none of the others do does not lend itself to automatic credibility but should be scrutinized. Also, according to her, she left crying, but apparently her boyfriend didn’t notice her tears? She says her neck was bruised the next day, but where were her mom and dad finding out who had bruised their daughter?
  4. But they voted for Trump! So? A whole lot of people voted for Trump that are traditionally Democrats or that are socially liberal. I did. As I have stated, I hate Roy Moore’s brand of conservatism. Many people that voted for Trump do. Trump, himself, endorsed Luther Strange. Trump has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. The ladies’ votes are used as a smoke-screen. Who they voted for does not add to their credibility any more than what they ate for lunch.
  5. McConnell and Bannon. It was just weeks ago that McConnell defended his support and $30MILLION for Strange saying it is about picking candidates that can win general elections, not just primaries. Bannon has made war on McConnell. IF Moore were to win, life would become exponentially more difficult for McConnell and the Establishment wing of the GOP Senate next year in 2018. If Moore had to drop out or lose, he could claim a victory over Bannon and make it harder for other “outsider” candidates in races across the country next year to win primaries over incumbents. Also, notice it was 57 minutes from the story going live and McConnell and his GOP Establishment allies standing before reporters calling for Moore to step down. When Alabamians weren’t immediately with them, a whole new accuser stepped forward with Gloria Allred with a story that was horrendous and hit all of the earmarks. Notice that McConnell upped his rhetoric BEFORE that 5th account, almost like he knew what was coming. Then, GOP is threatening to not seat or remove Moore from the Senate, Alabama voters be damned, while they have all sat back and been silent on Dem. Senator Menendez from NJ had been on corruption trials and has been accused of liking the youngest and newest of the underage hookers he was paying for. If Moore’s actions are disqualifying, why haven’t they been as vocal against the deplorable senator from New Jersey?
  6. Timing is everything. 1 month before the special election and 40 years AFTER these events these women come forward? The primary was heated, why not then? Moore has been a polarizing figure in politics for decades so, why now?
  7. Why add the other 3 ladies in the first article? Nothing alleged was illegal or immoral except the accusation Moore bought alcohol for a girl when she “might” have been 18, but she acknowledges she turned 19 during that same period and would have been legal. So, who knows if she was underage or not– certainly not the now middle-aged woman. So how can we? Her not remembering that she was in a dry county where no alcohol would have been served doesn’t add to the credibility that she was underage. It also doesn’t make one bit of sense that an ADA would OPENLY break the law by plying an underage girl with alcohol in PUBLIC. Notice, in those 3 accounts, the ONLY suggestion of wrong-doing is he MIGHT have bought alcohol for one that was underage, and logically, it makes more sense that he didn’t. So, why did they include those 3 girls- now ladies? To muddy the waters. To make him look “creepy.” If anything, the one girl that was 14 when she met him but he waited 2 years until she was 16 to ask her out adds more questions to the validity of the other 14 year-olds story. Notice, these other 3 girls all say that he either asked their mother or had their mothers’ blessing. His actions against the 4th girl are an outlier from the WaPo story, which actually should give everyone pause before convicting this man in their mind and the 5th’s story is so very different than the other 4 that it also should be judged with some healthy questioning.
  8.  Memories change over time. In the early 80s, I was molested by an older cousin. I may remember telling a cousin my age, but I can’t be sure. I did tell my mother, at least I think I did. I can’t really remember for certain, but it seems like I remember telling her and not really wanting to hear it or believing me. I “feel” like I remember more about being hurt by my mother’s response than by the actual molestation, although that has caused its own set of issues with me over the past 35+ years. My point in sharing this is that memories change.  It is entirely possible that “something” happened to Ladies 1 and 5. What that was or could have been I don’t know. I do know that the mind can be subject to suggestion, and more than one thing can cause false memories. That is why after 40 years it is hard to know for CERTAIN what happened.
  9. Which leads me to my final point. As a Catholic, I believe we all are sinners. We all make mistakes. It doesn’t preclude us from changing for the better. Look at St. Paul, or Augustine the Great. Two individuals that were men of ill-repute who turned towards God and were changed by God. I don’t know what happened 40 years ago, but there are enough questions surrounding the events that I think people should be too quick to judge. I also think that people may want to take into account that memories can be wrong or manipulated, but even if they weren’t, and what they say is the God’s honest truth, look at the man since then. Did he continue to prey on younger women after he was married? (A predator would.) Or has he been a devoted husband (of a much younger woman) and a public servant that does what he says he will do? Remember, if we judge this man for actions that may or may not be true, judge him for “creepy” behavior that wasn’t so creepy then, judge him for 40-year-old behavior, then we need to judge EVERYONE in the exact same manner. Meaning: accusation of wrong-doing alone is enough to destroy a person’s life. Who, then, is really “worthy” to be serving as elected officials?

Roy Moore may have done these things. He may not have. No matter, that should NOT be the ONLY reason you vote for him or you don’t; mankind is flawed, we are all sinners. We are good and evil. Do you weigh these accusations? Absolutely, just as you weigh policy positions! Look at the totality of the evidence and choose the candidate that you most want to have your voice in DC.  Anyone that says otherwise may have an agenda that may not be your agenda. Alabama voters should be the one that decides this, not the media, and not the DC Swamp.


Are we headed to another war?

I am not asking about another war overseas, but another civil war.

I basically had to quit Facebook to try and save what little bit of sanity I have left, but even without it, the “news” media has kept me up to speed with the state of this/these country/countries– depending on which channel/paper/site you are viewing.

Much has been made of the slip of the tongue that caused “alternative facts” to become part of the lexicon, but hardly a word has been mentioned about “Russia invading Korea,” the issues with President “Bush’s” actions, or the 57 states that now comprise the USA. Why is it acceptable to make a mistake when speaking if you are of one political persuasion, but not another? Why is it acceptable to place one’s feet on the furniture if you are a Democrat but not acceptable if you are a Republican? Why does anyone even care?

I don’t truly consider myself to be Republican, Democrat, Green, or Libertarian, but I do tend more toward the Libertarian spectrum of political views. That is what I believe based on my knowledge and experience of America, but I also know that not every person has the same experiences and education that I do and that is where the true potential of America’s greatness lies– not in lockstep synchronicity of thought and belief, but in an ability to coalesce around a common ideal of America as the land of diverse backgrounds but a single pursuit– FREEDOM.

Our First Amendment enshrines a freedom to the press because a free press was seen as instrumental in the checks and balances of the checks and balances already enshrined by three co-equal branches of government. It has always been the presses role to inform the public about the happenings within and working of our government and our elected officials. It was understood that only with an informed electorate could the true check on government be contained. The only way for the people to make the choices that they choose for the direction of the country is with knowledge of where we have come from, where we are now, and where we wish to go. Throughout school, we are taught that history of where we have come from, and our politicians campaign on where they think we should go, and in order to make an informed decision about who we will choose we need an accurate view of where we are now and what our representative government is actually doing. The check that enshrines freedom to the press also bestows a responsibility to that same press: namely, to be FREE. Free from ideology, bias, agenda, and propaganda.

The press in this country is failing, horribly.

Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% (14% of Conservatives) saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.

Much has been made of how bad the polls were for the 2016 election. Now, I was basically removed from social media for the majority of the campaign season (for my sanity) but even I could see, living in a section of that Blue Wall, that the election results were not nearly as certain as the press was reporting. Heck, I live in Biden and Rodham country! HRC’s daddy is from and buried here and Joe Biden grew up here, and when I would be on the roads I never once saw a Hillary sign but saw Trump signs everywhere. The press was reporting what they WANTED to be true not what actually was true.

It is this protected press that is abusing the freedoms that have been granted it by our Bill of Rights. They have become participants in an oligarchy that seeks to push an agenda and are doing the bidding of those that it has chosen to be the ruling class. This is dangerous. In order to control us, they have divided us. They have made it us versus them, and in any contest, there are winners and losers.

2016 brought a very divided nation to the polls, and all hell broke loose. The “free press” had reported for months that HRC would win handily and history would be made by electing the first woman to the presidency. They also were reporting for most of the year at the discord within the Republican Party and how George W. Bush may have been the last republican President. That the party was crumbling and had no viable path for relevance in the future. Then Wikileaks showed that the Democrats were only truly unified around one common theme: electing HRC no matter what the actual Democratic voters may have wanted. They not only were putting their thumb on the scale for her, but they had an active cohort in their rigging of the system: the FREE press. Only then did some in the press discuss the tension within the Democratic Party, and it was on a CBS News broadcast that I witnessed Charlie Rose turn to Bob Schieffer and ask, “What’s going on in our party, Bob?” (That was the last time I actually watched more than a minute or two of any CBS News programming. I actually turned on the channel on election night just for shits and giggles!)

Why would that statement bother me so much you might ask. Well, going back almost 25 years to my college years I remember speaking with a woman that was a reporter and acquaintance and when I mentioned that I wished to nominate her for a position on the Board of Directors of the local Community Theater she informed and educated me why she couldn’t because of journalistic ethics. Her objectivity could come into question if needed to report on events that might include the theater or other board members, and that as a reporter, ethics precluded her from taking a recognized part or membership in such clubs, organizations or political parties. It was during that conversation that and subsequent conversations with other reporters and journalism students that my respect for the media was instilled. This wasn’t just a job or a career, but a vocation– a calling.

As I matured and became more interested in the actual news of the day, it became obvious that not every reporter or newsman was as ethical as that first one who enlightened me about what their job actually entailed. As I became more affected by government and its imposition on my rights and my responsibilities to it (paying taxes), I began paying ever more attention to the news and could see more and more bias within the news. It was only with the advent of the internet could I see two sides of the same story, and see more of the facts concerning the subject of the story. I could see that one reporter would choose which facts and words he used to frame his story to fit a narrative while the other reporter would do the same exact thing but in reverse.

Two news organizations were telling two very different stories and using different facts and quotes cherry-picked to push an agenda. Neither was all that concerned with actually reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly but only with the selling of a paper, the clicking of a site or the viewing of a television program. They both had failed in the responsibility to the people that granted them special consideration in the First Amendment. The only people that win in this divide and conquer strategy are the politicians and reporters who can keep control of the peasants that have granted them the power to govern and report in the first place.

Now, back to the election, a significant portion of the population was appalled on election night, and their horror was broadcast for all to see. We have seen protests, riots, marches, calls for secession and demonstrations against the President, even before he was sworn in, and regularly in the short time since. The continual coverage of this only encourages the emotional response to continue ad nauseum. The one thing that nobody seems to take into account is that nobody bothers to consider the “feelings” of the people that elected Trump. Why do their feelings and choices not deserve the same respect that is being demanded? These are the questions that a REAL reporter would pose, but that question does not further an agenda so it serves no purpose.

Now, what is intriguing to me is how the news seems to push an agenda that seeks to put restraints on the Second Amendment. (The recent overturning of an Obama-era order that added further restrictions to a person’s rights was widely reported but was reported badly. It pushed an agenda and was propaganda fuel for the liberal elite that was not based on concrete facts. We live in a time where reporters no longer worry about letting facts get in the way of the story they are selling. They are more concerned about money and ideology than truth and fairness.) I have recently discussed the idea that perhaps we need to require reporters to obtain a license like we require people to in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In many ways, we are seeing daily in our media that the pen of the press has been at least as powerful as a person’s gun in affecting the lives of Americans. We require teachers to be licensed and educational programs to be approved before we submit or children’s minds to them, and we require doctor’s to be licensed and held to standards in order to practice medicine. I posit that the power of the press is of equal or greater power than that of a teacher or a doctor. It is through them that we are forced to get a glimpse of the government through their looking glass and it is through that glimpse that we are able to educate ourselves in order to make the most important decision we can make as citizens, our vote for our choice in which direction we want the country to take. By undermining the ability of the citizenry to be educated about the goings on in government they are undermining the entire system– a system that has granted them certain freedoms, but with those freedoms come responsibility. At this point, the howling from the media about Russian meddling should cause people to laugh. No country has meddled in our elections more than our very own “free” press, and since they have lost they have done everything in their power to topple the President and the agenda of the PEOPLE. It is time we, THE PEOPLE, put some limits on the free exercise of the propaganda press and in order for them to be granted the FREEDOM of the press, they should be licensed and held to ethical standards.


Some of my best friends are Smiths.

race_exhibitIn high school, I saw a play of the same name as the title of this post. I never forgot it. I later was judging a high school theater competition in Illinois when I saw this play again. The play deals with the illogical thinking that causes racism or judgmentalism in our world (the play is actually set in England) in a very simple way. I often use the title trying to explain the absurdity of judgmentalism. Some get it; some don’t.

Having only experienced life as a white person, I can’t begin to try to expound on the complexities of life as an individual of color, but I am a member of a community that has been harassed, had our rights stripped and found ourselves on the receiving end of some of the most vile and degrading lies and insults that you can imagine. That’s right; I am a BREEDER!

In fact, I am a damn fine Breeder, but that doesn’t matter to some people. To them, the mere fact that I cause additional life to be born I am an evil person because somewhere some dog unknown to me is supposedly going to die because the people who “buy” from me have made a choice to buy a purposely created dog rather than a dog of unknown origins with unknown problems. The absurdity of this argument is further laughable by the mere fact that the majority of these people also have produced children of their own while real-life children suffer through their childhoods without a family of their own. That is what I call hypocrisy.

These hypocrites also fail to note that the most recent study I have found puts “purebred” dogs in shelter make up about 5% of the shelters canine populations. 5%! Over the last 15 years I have kept track of dogs in my primary breed through Petfinder and our national breed clubs rescue organization (the only rescue in the nation for the breed). In those 15 years, the annual intake or dogs in the breed is an average of 0.8 animals a year. Let’s repeat that– the average number of dogs in my primary breed that end up in a shelter or rescue is LESS THAN A SINGLE DOG A YEAR! That number would be even lower, but several years ago, an aging breeder asked a girl at her veterinarian’s office if she knew anyone looking for part-time work because she needed a new “helper.” Well, that girl called her friend the local Animal Control officer and the AC bullied the woman into getting rid of the majority of her dogs, and the lady’s lawyer placed several in a shelter out-of-state. (I picked up those dogs from the shelter, and was able to blow the whistle on the injustice of what was happening by the excellent shape the older dogs were in. The lady eventually was able to get ALL of her dogs back, and the AC lost her job because of this and several other incidents like it). If I remove the dogs that were placed because of an out-of-control Animal Control Officer, the annual average drops to 0.2 animals a year over the last 15 years, and none of those are dogs that I bred. So, how exactly am I killing innocent dogs? My other breed is very popular. It is a family favorite, so there are almost always puppies available anywhere in the country, so you would expect that shelters would be over-run with them, right? Well, there are so few that RESKEWS are actually importing dogs FROM OTHER COUNTRIES to supply the demand for dogs of this popular breed. So, again, how am I killing innocent dogs? It’s easy– I am not! We need to do away with blaming breeders for dogs in shelters. That onus should fall solely on the owner. We don’t automatically blame a 70 year-old mother because of the actions of her 50 year-old son, so why should a breeder be blamed for the actions of a buyer? They shouldn’t.

The truth is that there ARE bad breeders out there– people who do not take adequate care of their animals, who abuse or neglect them. The same is true, though, for every group of people on this planet! If a white cop illegally murders a person of color, does that make all white cops bad or evil? A black man who commits a crime against a white woman does not make ALL black men evil or criminal. You can no more blame a whole race of people for the actions of a few than you can blame all breeders for the actions of a few. It is insanity!

So, the next time you see these Animal Rights Terrorists picketing a breeder, or starting an on-line lynch mob based on little to no evidence, remember that the breeder may very well be one of your best friends– a SMITH.

The haters say it is about the money…

US Currency is seen in this January 30, 2001 image. AFP PHOTO/Karen BLEIER (Photo credit should read KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)

US Currency is seen in this January 30, 2001 image. AFP PHOTO/Karen BLEIER (Photo credit should read KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)

But in my experience, the only people making any REAL money is everyone in the Pet Industry BUT the breeders, without the heartache!

This weekend, a very special little girl, Pippa, left my house to go live with a new family. Pippa is a pip, and is such a loving little girl that knows no stranger that when the decision was made that she would never be bred, I decided that I would make her available to be placed.

That decision was an easy one to make, theoretically, and after I turned down 3 families, I sort of half-heartedly mentioned her to one last person. This family was interested and we had several conversations, and they drove a couple of hours to my house to meet her. It was love at first sight for them. Theoretically, everything was perfect, but that theory doesn’t really speak the language of my heart. So, I had my partner take her to her new home on Saturday because I JUST COULDN’T. I was heartbroken. It was breaking my heart to say good-bye to this darling young girl and I had so many conflicting feelings it was tearing me up, but I knew she would be fine. She would go and never look back. It was me that would miss her, not the other way around, and sure enough, when I laid down to watch a movie Saturday night, and Pippa wasn’t here to hop up and nap curled up ON TOP of me, her absence was heavier than she ever was.

I didn’t place her for the money; in fact, the only money I took was a deposit that will be returned after her 2 year-old testing is done and recorded– no matter the results. I know that at least one result will be a “fail” because it was the reason she wasn’t going to be bred, but by posting all results, even the “fails” we can track familial lines and make educated decisions in our breeding programs. I request that all of my buyers do the testing, and offer them a refund of a portion of their purchase price (to cover the costs associated with the tests) so that we, as breeders, can track not just the dogs that are kept and shown and bred, but the litters as well.

Selling Pippa wasn’t about the money, and it wasn’t about me, but about her and the family she will bring years of joy to, even in my heart had to break to make that happen. Breeders aren’t selfish or greedy, we do it for the love of OUR dogs!


Pippa– already Queen of the bed in her new home. I miss you, sweet girl!

Say What?

aphisThat’s what the government told us! The same government that had an open comment period for concerned citizens to offer their opinion on the proposed new APHIS regulations. They heard from every segment of the population and made exactly ZERO changes to their new proposed regulations, and then told us just to call them and describe our situation and they would tell us whether we fell under these regulations, Well, “Yeah, umm… NO! Do you really think I can trust you?”

Of course I can’t! The USDA has become overrun with Animal Rights Extremists and Terrorists, so if their mission is to outlaw animal usage by humans, do I really think they would apply logic, science or even a common sense approach to dog breeders?

One of the sticklers, for me, is the very lack of definition of “breeding females.” One would think, hope and expect that an agency of the Government would provide clear directives and definitions to the regulations they impose on those they are charged with regulating, but if they did that, it would be so much harder to catch unsuspecting, and well-meaning, individuals in those “gotcha” moments that could ruin the lives of its tax-paying citizens. (You know, those tax-paying citizens that pay their salaries.) BUT, they have zero definition of what a breeding female is. It could be any female of any species that is not surgically altered, but they won’t just say that. They tell you to call them and they will make a case-by-case decision. Say what?

I will use a real life example of a friend of mine: Say person Z is a dog breeder and has 20 dogs, 3 cats, 5 chickens, 2 Nigerian Dwarf goats and 3 horses. Now, of those 33 animals on Person Z’s farm, 22 are genetically female. This person would fall under APHIS if they ever place an animal sight unseen– even if they send a dog across the country to their cousin, their FAMILY!
Now, let’s take a closer look at those 24 females: 5 are hens. There is no rooster, so no breeding would be taken place, but technically they “could” be bred! 2 are ancient goat does! There is no buck, so no breeding would be taking place, but technically they “could” be bred! 2 are horses (mares) and of those 2, only 1 SHOULD or WOULD ever be bred. The other has too many health issues to even attempt to list, but she technically “could” be bred. 1 is a cat, and is spayed, so she can’t count as “breedable.” 14 are dogs (bitches). {Now, remember, this person is a hobby/ show breeder} Of those 14, A, B, and C are 12 years old or older and spayed because of pyometras and in their lifetimes they have combined to produce exactly 2 litters for a total of 3 puppies. D is 9 y.o. and has produced a total of 1 litter of 2 puppies in her lifetime. E is 9 y.o. and has never been bred and currently has T-cell lymphoma. F is 9 y.o. and has never been bred. G, H and I are 8 y.o. and have never been bred and didn’t pass a couple of their health clearances so wouldn’t be bred. J is 7 y.o. and didn’t pass a couple of her clearances and would never be bred. K is 6 y.o. and has passed EVERY health clearance and has been bred ONCE producing 4 puppies. L is 3 y.o. and had 1 litter producing 3 puppies. M is 2 y.o. and didn’t pass a couple of her health tests so she would not be bred. N is just coming 2 y.o. and has yet to finish her health tests. So, according to the term breedable, A, B, and C don’t count, but D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M and N do. That is more than 5, even though D, E, F, G, H, I, J and M haven’t been or wouldn’t be bred, leaving only K, L and N that as a hobby/ show breeder they would possibly breed. So, out of the 11 that are technically breedable, only 3 would possibly be. Add that to the possible breeding of 1 of the livestock animals (the healthy mare) this individual has, in any common-sense/ logical interpretation 4 breedable females.

But, what do you suppose the powers-that-be would say if this person picked up the phone and called the government and explained their situation? Does any logical person living in reality think the government would say, “Oh, don’t worry about APHIS, it doesn’t apply to you!” Of course NOT! They would demand to come onto the property and inspect and make their own determination. Question: When did Animal Ownership equate to invasion of privacy by the Government? What probable cause would they have to search and inspect such a person’s property? And if they can search theirs, what is to stop them from “inspecting” yours?

I can see the day in the not too far-off future.

lwdI love my dogs. I respect them. I enjoy them. The joy they brings others makes all of the hard work I undertake as a breeder worth it.

BUT. (isn’t there always a but?)

BUT, I have to be realistic. I fell in love with a rather obscure breed, an absolutely amazing breed, but a breed that isn’t exactly popular, so, there are only so many homes for the puppies that are produced, and what I have seen over the past 15 years in the breed is that most breeders don’t refer people to other breeders when a puppy-buyer comes a callin’.

The logic behind this action is that if they tell someone looking about another litter, they may not have a buyer when they decide to breed their next litter! I guess that makes “some” sense, but doesn’t getting ALL of the puppies produced placed in homes also help the entire breed? Of course it does. Well-bred puppies in pet homes help expose the breed to people who may never hear of it otherwise. It also helps breeders keep their numbers down by not being over-run with adolescent dogs.

For example, I currently have 3 puppies that are about to turn 4 months old. Through Facebook and correspondence with other breeders almost everyone in the breed knows I have a litter. I have put pictures of the puppies on-line and networked them the best I could, but I have received zero puppy buyers contact me. ZERO. 4 month old puppies and I have had ZERO inquiries. So, last week when their granddam came into season, the decision was made not to breed her. Now, before people get their panties in a bunch, the granddam is all of 6 years old and has had exactly ONE litter of puppies. She also, at 6, is patella clear (which is unheard of), hips rated GOOD (and hardly anybody does hips) BAER tested, Cardiac and Eye cleared by specialists. Her daughter from her first litter not only went Best of Opposite in Sweeps at the National, but finished as a puppy.

So, for every breeder that doesn’t refer, they have just narrowed the gene pool, because QUALITY and HEALTHY bitches that are an ASSET to an already small gene pool don’t get bred. People don’t find out about our breed because puppies don’t end up in great pet homes, where other people become exposed to the wonderful breed we love. So, while you are protecting your “sale” you are also helping to bring about the destruction of our breed. So, when you end up with no decent dogs to breed to, look in the mirror and thank yourself.


When companies listen to mob rule; we all lose.

This week, after ignoroance ruled the feeds the airlines caved, and made another ridiculous “feel-good” regulation. They won’t accept the results of LEGAL big-game hunting on their airlines anymore. So, this is unacceptable for flight:


But shipping underage puppies that are crammed into crowded crates and riddled with parasites and untold diseases are perfectly acceptable!


I wish someone would explain to me how this makes ANY sense! I can completely understand why regulations are in place for LIVE animals, but the carcass of an animal that was legally killed, and that is following the importation regulations is deemed unacceptable. Perhaps the airlines should consider following not only their regulations but THE LAWS that govern shipping animals before they cave to mob pressure and make regulations that affect LAW-abiding citizens.

I know you wonder how this affects “you.” Well, 1) the risk of disease transmission of a big-game carcass are minimal. Most diseases are non-zoonotic, so the risk to you or your pet (not many people own big game) are also minimal. 2) underage, parasite ridden and diseases dogs and cats not only bring in the parasites, are at risk of death from the stress of flight, but diseases that don’t exist yet in this country are arriving in alarming numbers! 3) Legal hunting is actually what pays for the majority of conservation efforts. Nothing in life is free, and the permits and licenses associated with humting create the revenue that fund the salaries of the game wardens that PROTECT the wildlife. Without legal hunting, there would be no revenue to fund the wardens that stop poaching. 4)Let’s say you collect German Beer steins. A story crosses the internet that claims that Hitler drank the blood of his victims from Beer Steins, and he created a law that a portion of the money for every stein sold was to fund an ethnic cleansing. Now, that COULD be false, but some morons follow their emotions and the mob forms calling for the abolishment of beer steins from Germany. Well, you know the story is false, but the mob is loud and keeps spouting an emotional campaign against your much-loved hobby, and then the airlines cave, and you can no longer bring home your steins, all so that the mob “may” save “someone” from an ethnic cleansing.