[ SHOWGSD-L ] info on pet population LONG but interesting
- From: "Anja Heibloem-Stroud" <Anja_Heibloem-Stroud@xxxxxxx>
- To: "showgsdlistnew" <Showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:14:56 -0800
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:04:44 -0700
From: "Cherie Graves" <paragon@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: NAIA ON PET OVERPOPULATION- MUST READ
NAIA: Redefining pet overpopulation
Home About NAIA What's New? NAIA Library Get Involved Join NAIA NAIA
Store Links Search
Redefining pet overpopulation: The no-kill movement and the new jet setters
By Patti L. Strand
Fewer and fewer dogs are entering shelters every year, and shelter deaths are
down and continuing to fall. This steady decline in intakes and deaths pays
tribute to the tireless efforts of shelter employees, responsible dog breeders
and rescue volunteers who have worked, prayed, and bullied their way to a
future when the demand for pets would equal or exceed the supply and they would
no longer be forced to euthanize healthy, adoptable animals.
That future is now! Nationwide, studies show that during the last 30 years
shelter intakes and euthanasias have decreased by 70-90 percent or more in many
cities, particularly those located on the east and west coasts. One consequence
of this remarkable development is a steep decline in the number of shelter dogs
available for adoption in many parts of the country. In order to deal with
their newfound success, some shelters and rescue groups have had to realign
their efforts, sometimes with surprising results.
Faced with fewer small dogs and puppies to offer the public, a handful of
shelters and organizations have swapped their traditional mission for a new
bottom line strategy aimed at filling consumer demands. Simply stated, they
have become pet stores. Some are importing stray dogs across state lines and
from foreign countries to maintain an inventory of adoptable dogs. Other
shelters are misapplying no-kill shelter principles by adopting out seriously
ill and bad-tempered dogs. These practices might be well motivated but they
create significant new problems for the responsible sheltering community and
the public. To name a few, they sustain rather than solve the "overpopulation"
issue; they effect an end run around responsible breeders; they open a door to
potentially devastating diseases and parasites not currently found in our
country; and they ensure a future in which the supply of healthy, well-bred
dogs and cats will be severely limited.
NAIA looked at the long road to success in overcoming America's surplus pet
problem and observed some disturbing trends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The old days
"We're working hard to put ourselves out of business" has always been the motto
of shelter workers. Sally Bishop is an eminent breeder of Pembroke Welsh
Corgis, AKC judge and NAIA supporter who worked at a busy Oregon shelter in the
1970's - some of the worst years of pet surplus.
"Back then, we were in the business of cleaning kennels and killing dogs,"
Bishop said."That's what we did all day, every day. We cleaned until one
o'clock and then we killed until closing. There was no time to do anything
else."
Her experience was typical of the period. In raw numbers, the two shelters
located in Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon, area) received more than 34,000
live dogs in 1974 and killed 20,000 of them. At this pace, there was no time
left over for long-term planning or innovating, no light at the end of the
tunnel. Fortunately, it's hard to imagine such bleak circumstances now.
Today, 26 years later, Sharyn Middleton, shelter operating supervisor for
Multnomah County Animal Control, said, "I haven't put an adoptable dog to sleep
in months, and with all the volunteers and rescue people who work with us now,
I may never have to again. People are spaying and neutering; they want to be
responsible pet owners. It took a long time but they're starting to get it."
Awesome!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breathing room
MCAC already had a strong spay and neuter program and good placement practices
when Middleton joined the staff in 1980. As a result of the groundwork already
in place, she was able to focus her attention on finding ways to increase
adoptions and decrease incoming animals. She began working with rescue groups
and other community volunteers and she created (and moderated) a cable TV show
on responsible pet ownership. Finally, and with a lot of help and encouragement
from community volunteers, she helped launch a satellite placement center for
local shelters at one of the biggest malls in Oregon. By going the extra mile,
thinking creatively and embracing the opportunity to work with volunteers,
innovators like Middleton all over the US began reaching for goals they had not
dreamed of just a few short years before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No-kill" plan to reduce shelter deaths
During roughly the same years that Middleton was launching new programs in
Oregon, another innovator burst onto the scene in California as president of
the San Francisco SPCA. From the very beginning, Richard Avanzino charted a
positive course for his organization by building community support for animals
and getting people to work together regardless of their backgrounds or
differences. Avanzino is a good looking, charismatic leader with a gift for gab
and great marketing skills. His programs and fundraising style represented a
startling departure from the negative, pin-the-blame rhetoric used by some of
the most prominent organizations of the time His lack of conformity and
enormous fundraising ability earned him sharp criticism from traditional humane
organizations, especially those still invested in conflict-style fundraising.
Avanzino blamed no one.
His most controversial and notable contribution to the animal protection
movement is the coining of the idea and term "no-kill shelter" to designate
shelters that no longer euthanize adoptable animals. No-kill shelters had been
around for a long time but his concept differed substantially from the old
save-them-all-no-matter-what model. Avanzino moved the SF SPCA to a no-kill
position in 1989 and introduced the concept nationally through an Adoption Pact
that he initiated with the city animal control agency in 1994. In the pact, the
city's animal control agency agreed to offer any adoptable dog or cat that it
could not place through its own adoption program to the SPCA instead of
euthanizing it. In return the SPCA promised to take any adoptable dog or cat
that the agency offered and find it a suitable home.
Using the pact as the centerpiece of a brilliant marketing campaign, Avanzino
promoted the San Francisco SPCA's no-kill status and simultaneously launched
the term and the movement. The old guard viewed his idea as blasphemy and
attacked him immediately by alleging that he was misleading the public about a
plan they believed had no real chance of success.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criticisms of no-kill
Criticisms leveled against no-kill shelters include assertions that no-kill
means only that some other shelter will do the killing. Opponents warn that
when some humane societies switch to no kill, they quit accepting all but the
best, healthiest and easiest to adopt animals and turn away the less adoptable
ones or refer them to publicly-funded shelters in the area. Hence, when a local
humane society goes no-kill it may indicate that from then on the public
shelter will get all the hard-to-place animals and all the public criticism.
By far the biggest criticism against the no-kill shelter movement is that the
term is misleading on its face because it encourages the public to believe that
the goal is to kill no shelter animals. Animal professionals know that for
humane reasons alone, there will always be a need to euthanize some animals.
The less affluent members of society often bring their sick, old and injured
pets to shelters for euthanasia. It would be irresponsible for shelters to deny
a humane death to any suffering animal. In addition, for reasons of public
health and safety some animals should not be returned to the community.
Sadly, just as the critics warned, a few shelters have begun turning away all
but the best candidates for adoption in order to achieve the no-kill image.
Just as predicted, some of them are referring the poorer risks to other
shelters or to rescue groups. Unfortunately, there are always a few bad apples
to prove the critics right. Operating a shelter this way may improve a
shelter's bottom line and euthanasia statistics, but it shows little compassion
and even less integrity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No-kill" according to Avanzino
Richard Avanzino has stated repeatedly that saving every life is not the goal
of the no-kill movement. From the San Francisco Adoption Pact forward, he has
always spelled out that the goal is to prevent the euthanasia of adoptable, and
eventually of treatable animals. The no-kill philosophy recognizes the need to
euthanize animals that cannot be rehabilitated. The pact [1] describes
non-rehabilitatable as, "cats and dogs for whom euthanasia is the most Humane
alternative due to disease or injury.vicious cats and dogs, the placement of
whom would constitute a danger to the public.cats and dogs who pose a public
health hazard.Using the Adoption Pact as an example, no-kill also recognizes
that shelters "shall have the right to define the terms 'adoptable,'
'treatable,' and 'non-rehabilitatable.'"
As administrator of Maddie's Fund, the $200 million no-kill fund donated by
Cheryl and David Duffield (PeopleSoft), Avanzino explained the goal in a little
more detail: ".when we reach the juncture where healthy, adoptable shelter
animals can be guaranteed a home throughout the nation, Maddie's Fund will then
focus its resources on funding programs to rehabilitate the sick, injured and
poorly behaved." [2]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No-kill" marketing
In yet another effort to clarify the term, Maddie's Fund offers the following
perspective on their web site: "As much as anything, no-kill is a rallying cry;
a slogan that defines a movement: The term clearly and powerfully protests the
status quo, that being the killing of millions of savable animals in the
nation's animal shelters every year."
Whether or not Avanzino's vision ultimately prevails, to his enormous credit he
has already succeeded in reframing one of the most negative animal welfare
issues of this century by focusing attention on finding solutions rather than
problems. The term that no-kill replaces in the animal protection lexicon is
"pet overpopulation," a term that has been detrimental to progress from the
beginning because it defines the entire surplus animal problem in terms of
breeding. It makes villains out of all breeders; no matter how responsible, no
matter how great the demand for their carefully bred and reared puppies or
kittens, and no matter how much they contribute to the welfare of animals. Pet
overpopulation defined the problem simply as oversupply. It overlooked the
demand side of the equation entirely; i.e. that people actually want well-bred,
well-socialized puppies and kittens. It also made no distinctions among
suppliers and thereby devalued the importance of responsible breeding, training
and pet placement practices that are so critically important to successful pet
ownership.
Maddie's Fund, however, focuses on supply and demand. On the supply side it
promotes aggressive spay and neuter programs. On the demand side it recommends
marketing shelter animals, keeping longer shelter hours, working with everyone
who wants to help, and most importantly, it focuses efforts on a positive and
attainable goal - saving adoptable and then treatable shelter animals. With
that, Maddie's Fund and Avanzino have overcome decades of negativism and
provided shelter workers and activists alike with their first real chance to
succeed.
Virtually all successful marketing campaigns rely on abbreviated tag lines to
convey complex ideas in simple terms. None are wholly satisfactory because they
are all subject to misunderstanding and misuse. "No-kill" offers particularly
fertile ground for being misused, but that does not mean that the concept as
put forth by Maddie's Fund is flawed; only that some people are misusing it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shelters in transition
Thankfully, because of decades of effort and innovations, the surplus animal
problem has entered a new epoch. Using Multnomah County as an example again,
euthanasia for dogs has dropped to approximately 10 percent of its mid-1970's
rate despite sizeable human population increases during the same period. Even
more significant is the fact that as euthanasia totals decrease, the number of
euthanized adoptable animals also decreases until it finally reaches zero.
Personnel at both the private and the public shelters in Multnomah County
indicate that they no longer euthanize adoptable dogs. This means that the
number of puppies and dogs bred and placed each year in Multnomah County from
all sources, dog breeders, rescues, shelters, pet stores, and giveaways, now
approximates the demand for puppies and dogs.
Multnomah County is not alone. Many communities are reaching similar states of
equilibrium in the supply and demand for dogs. In a few areas, the demand for
dogs today actually outstrips the local supply while other areas continue to
fight sizeable surpluses.
Unfortunately, neither the rate of decline nor the status of shelter
populations is consistent from one city to another or from one region to
another. Generally speaking, shelters on both coasts appear to be ahead of many
central and southern states. The lack of uniformity from shelter to shelter and
region to region among shelters spawns interesting and sometimes harmful
practices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear criteria for adoption
In the 1970's when people like Sally Bishop struggled against the overwhelming
flood of stray and unwanted animals, shelters had only rudimentary criteria for
selecting the animals that would be saved for adoption. Decisions rested on the
need to make room for the next hundred animals dropped off by owners or brought
in by humane agents or animal control officers Kennel cough, flea infestations
and timidity were valid euthanasia criteria. Decisions had to be based on
something, and such conditions provided justification for selecting some
animals over others in what was clearly a losing battle for everyone involved.
That situation is rapidly on its way to becoming a thing of the past.
Most shelters now have clear criteria for euthanasia, based on illness or
terminal infirmity, viciousness, and owner requests. However, as the total
euthanasia rates continue to decline and people receive only a hazy notion of
what "no-kill" means, shelters are getting pressure from the public and from
their memberships to abandon responsible adoption placement practices and go
no-kill. Pressure groups may not understand the progressive nature of no-kill
and instead push shelters to stop euthanizing even non-rehabilitatable animals
or to use limited resources to convert treatable animals to adoptable animals
before they have reached a population level where that kind of effort makes
sense. There is a growing tendency for private shelters that operate from a
mission and depend on contributions, and for public shelters because of
political pressure, to feel pushed into making poor decisions in accepting and
placing animals.
As a result, a few shelters now place dogs with serious health and temperament
problems instead of humanely euthanizing them as they once responsibly did. A
number of breed rescuers tell us that their local shelters now offer them dogs
for placement that should not be adopted. NAIA's experience in fielding calls
from people with pet-related problems bears this out. Historically, the
majority of calls came from people complaining about dogs they had purchased
from irresponsible breeders, commonly called backyard breeders or puppy farms.
They wanted information about how to stop puppy mills or how to file consumer
complaints. Currently, NAIA also gets calls for help from people who have
adopted bad tempered or chronically ill shelter dogs, a phenomenon that almost
never occurred as recently as four years ago. Kind-hearted adopters now call
NAIA members seeking advice on whether or not they should have their dog put to
sleep; go to another dog behaviorist or trainer; risk lawsuit; continue paying
veterinary bills that exceed the family's budget, etc.
Breeders and pet stores would be flogged in the press and crucified on tabloid
TV shows for placing animals such as these. Placing problem dogs in private
homes is irresponsible, no matter who does it. Shelters would be smart to
educate their communities about adoptable, treatable and non-rehabilitatable
shelter animals and to build consensus for what they believe to be responsible
adoption criteria. As both euthanasia rates and adoptable animals decline and
no-kill pressure builds, it becomes more important than ever before to have
reasonable guidelines in place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vacant kennel panic
For decades overpopulation has been the number one fundraising issue for
shelters everywhere. Now many shelters have empty kennel runs. Can a half-full
shelter appeal to donors as effectively as one filled to capacity?
How do shelters ethically deal with the elimination of overpopulation as an
issue? Wanting to put oneself out of business by solving the problem is not the
same as wanting to close the shelter and leave animal protection work. But
without the issue of overpopulation, how does a large metropolitan shelter fund
the rest of its operation?
Humane societies faced with fewer dogs and under no mandate to accept all the
animals that are brought to them can elect to keep a number of treatable dogs
at their shelters for however long it takes to rehabilitate and place them.
They can also raise or lower adoption criteria as physical space or operational
needs dictate. Working in this way may be in line with the mission and
membership's wishes as long as the public continues to contribute.
Animal control agencies operating on tax dollars and accountable to tax-paying
citizens rather than to members, however, cannot keep animals indefinitely.
Because public shelters must accept all the animals brought to them, using up
finite taxpayer resources for weeks or months on one animal inevitably raises
questions about fiscal responsibility. Most agencies would be censured if their
taxpaying constituents discovered their dollars were being spent to keep
kennels occupied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relocation to the rescue
To meet the demand created by having fewer adoptable dogs and to save dogs from
euthanasia in areas where supply is still high, some shelters have begun the
practice of moving dogs from areas of high supply to areas of low supply. As
long as the receiving shelters publicly disclose what they are doing and why,
the public may well accept this practice as a reasonable way to maximize
adoptions and minimize shelter deaths. Citizens may even experience some local
pride in being able to lend a helping hand. There are dilemmas for shelters to
consider before initiating these practices, however.
a.. Since the issue of overpopulation has been the number one shelter
fundraiser for so many years, can a shelter disclose that it's importing dogs
without losing support?
b.. Will citizens in one locale knowingly subsidize shelter operations in
another area or locales outside their state?
c.. Another problem is that while dogs are rapidly declining in some areas,
cats - especially free breeding, feral cats - are still a problem in many
areas. Are resources better spent on dog shuffling, on treating and training
dogs that could become adoptable, or on solving a local cat problem?
Typically, the importation of dogs occurs across state lines. When states are
adjacent or located in the same region and the animals come from shelters in
need, or the numbers involved are small, the public seems willing to go along
with relocations if made aware of them. By contrast, however, when
Northwesterners learned that 300 such dogs had been flown into their region
from Hawaii, attitudes shifted dramatically. People realized that receiving
imports of that magnitude would inevitably force shelters to euthanize local
adoptable dogs again.
Assurances that these imports do not displace local dogs are counter-intuitive.
It is unreasonable to believe that they don't. Yet some animal rights groups
and shelters have begun importing animals from as far away as Puerto Rico,
Mexico, Taiwan, Okinawa, and other distant locations.
When people first hear of these practices, they are often dumbstruck. If they
know that shelter workers are still putting local adoptable animals to sleep,
they become outraged. However, the practice of importing strays from other
countries is quietly becoming commonplace. According to the March 2000 issue of
The Animal Policy Report [3] from Tufts University School of Veterinary
Medicine, Center for Animals and Public Policy, "In the Northeastern US, animal
shelters are finding unique ways to address a problem they thought they would
never see - a shortage of mixed breed, adoptable puppies and small adult
dogs!.The creative solution to this dilemma was to begin an airlift of puppies
and small dogs from areas where surpluses still existed - some small adult dogs
from as far away as Puerto Rico.Over 6000 dogs have been flown in, without
major problems."[4]
But the Tufts report unfortunately turns out to be just the tip of the iceberg.
With only limited investigation NAIA uncovered the following indications of the
degree of stray animal importation that is occurring.
The Taipei Abandoned Animal Rescue Foundation web site [5] says, "Thanks to the
help of more people, places and groups than I ever even had known existed, I am
thrilled to say that EVERY SINGLE DOG IN OUR SHELTER MADE THE TRIP TO THE
USA!!!!" The regularly updated TAARF site shows that shelters and rescue groups
from Maine to Washington, California and Colorado have already received the
dogs mentioned on the site. TAARF advises, "We do overseas/long distance
adoptions to good homes or rescue organizations through our 'Wings for Pets'
program."
What is the likelihood that they will send more dogs to the US? Their web page
claims that there are more than two million stray dogs in Taiwan.
Arranging transportation into the US is another area of quiet innovation. For
overseas imports, the US shelter transferring organization commonly runs ads in
local papers asking people who will be flying to one of these countries to
consider bringing back a rescue dog as extra baggage. The animal rights group
or shelter [6] may take the animals directly into their shelter or they may
keep a list of potential adopters and simply act as an agent in putting the
shipper and receiver together.
Another method for bringing strays into the US for adoption is to get Americans
that are vacationing in Mexico to bring them back to particular shelters that
have "no small dogs to adopt." People from the Northwest vacationing in Mexico
this year have reported being asked to bring back dogs. The one who tipped us
off had worked with purebred rescue groups and knew that the last thing we
needed in the Northwest was imported homeless dogs. She was asked prior to
checkout from her hotel to carry one or two dogs into the Northwest. The hotel
had dog crates and offered to take care of the health certificate arrangements.
Our contact said she knew better but the family staying in the next room
brought back two dogs, no doubt believing they were performing a noble service.
If the shelter or one of the shelter's volunteers plans to temporarily house
the dog or cat, then one of them will generally meet the plane and bring the
dog to the shelter. Humane society booster groups such as Angel Escort [7]
provide assistance to humane societies that are shipping dogs to the US
mainland.
And finally, if you're wondering whether dogs are the only species being saved
via airlift to the US, please consider visiting the web site for Okinawan
Feline Rescue at: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ridge/9580/okikids.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motivations for importing strays
When participating shelters are asked why they would import dogs into areas
that are just now turning the tide on a problem they've fought for decades,
their first reply is that overpopulation is still a big problem. Next, they
uniformly assert that they need small mixed breed dogs to increase adopter
traffic. Simultaneously, they maintain that the small dogs do not displace any
of their other dogs. In effect, they're claiming that the foreign strays serve
as loss leaders for their less desirable but still adoptable longer-term
residents. This is not a compelling or convincing argument given the myriad
responsible actions that could be taken locally to stir up interest in their
current inventory. Moreover, it is disturbing to hear shelters justify
importing strays because of the demand for small mixed breeds. When did it
become the responsibility of humane societies and animal rights groups to fill
consumer demands? If this continues, local humane societies may soon become the
biggest pet stores in town.
The Humane Society of Snohomish County [8], a Seattle-area importer of dogs
from Taiwan, puts the madness into perspective, "By saving Taiwan dogs, we do
not feel this takes away from saving a dog at our own shelters. The majority of
dogs from Taiwan are small and our own shelters do not have many small dogs. At
this time we have over 38 people on our waiting list for small dogs. We feel it
is better to bring small dogs in from another part of the world than to have
these people going to a breeder. Many people, sadly, still do after they have
been on our waiting list for an extended period."
HSSC justifies its next shipment of Taiwan dogs because they have a waiting
list. Is this a shelter operation or a pet store? Or is this effort related to
the documented intent of animal rights interests to systematically displace
breeders from the marketplace? The tenth plank of the animal rights agenda is
to eliminate the purposeful breeding of companion animals. Please see:
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/aragenda.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank heavens there are no stray animals on the moon
Responsible breeders get ready! The structure, system, attitude and motivation
described above are out there and growing among the less ethical animal rights
groups and sheltering organizations. A 135-page activist booklet entitled "How
to stop euthanasias at all pet shelters" lays out the dogma for grassroots
activists that justifies some of the looming insanity The booklet's premise is
that there are only so many available pet homes and that breeders must be
displaced because they are walking off with the vast majority of available
homes that should be going to shelter rescues. The booklet recommends that
spaying and neutering of mixed breeds isn't always a good idea, the assumption
being that their offspring could also displace deliberately bred purebred dogs.
There's no doubt that animal rescue and adoption are becoming big business.
Four major web sites are now competing for the rescue/adoption "business" and
grassroots rescue groups have begun professional canvassing to line up adoption
candidates for their inventory of rescue dogs, present and future. For some of
them, the importation of stray animals from foreign lands seems to fill the
bill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential health risks
Beyond the issue of social irresponsibility that relates to importing stray
animals into a country that has worked to solve its own stray animal problem
for most of this century, a significant public health risk is posed by the mass
importation of animals from countries where standards of veterinary medicine
are not as high as they are in the US and where diseases and parasites that are
not found here currently may be endemic. Significantly, the dogs that are being
imported are not pets from private homes but strays from the streets, the most
likely reservoirs for parasites and diseases. Worse, we're bringing them into
communal shelters where they are most likely to pass on whatever diseases or
parasites they have to other companion animals. Some diseases and parasites
pose serious health risks for human health as well as for dogs.
Recent cases of leishmaniasis reported in the US signal the alert.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A line in the sand
At NAIA we are not predisposed toward new legislation or regulation. In the
case of organized international importation of strays, however, we believe that
a potential threat to our own pets' health exists that is serious enough to
warrant a review and tightening of the current laws, regulations and policies.
Readers with similar concerns can help us initiate such action by investigating
leads regarding importation of strays to their states and regions and by
sharing what they learn with us. This will help us get a more complete picture
of the extent of the problem so that we can share it with regulators. Anyone
that can help us with our ongoing investigation should call NAIA at (503)
761-1139 or email us at naia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
1.. http://www.maddies.org/nokill/sfspca6d.html (Apparently no longer online)
2.. http://www.maddies.org/nokill/nokill2.html (Apparently no longer online)
3.. http://www.tufts.edu/vet/cfa/14(1)nws.pdf
4.. For more information about the importation of Puerto Rican strays, please
see: http://www.saveasato.org
5.. For more information about TAARF, please see:
http://www.geocities.com/~t-aarf/main.html
6.. Two good examples of animal rights organizations and shelters
participating in importing animals are http://www.petsalive.com and
http://wwwsaveourdogs.com
7.. http://www.kauaihumanesociety.org/angelescort.htm (No longer available)
8.. Check out the Snohomish shelter at http://www.saveourdogs.com
Home About NAIA What's New? NAIA Library Get Involved Join NAIA
NAIA Store Links Search
Website design and all text are copyright 2003 by NAIA unless otherwise noted.
Reproduction by any means, electronic or mechanical, is forbidden unless
written request is submitted and approved.
Anja Heibloem-Stroud
www.pet-net.net/hausmekon/
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2005. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] info on pet population LONG but interesting
