A recent news story in the Washington Post encapsulated the frustrating struggle that we who advocate for animals and their well-being so often experience. The article detailed the conviction of Joan Huber, a “luminary on the dog show circuit,” (that is a bit like being the tallest building in Galax) for animal cruelty. She was turned in to authorities not by anyone in animal welfare but by her own employees who were horrified by her cropping the ears of her “show dogs” without proper and legally required veterinary medical care and even without anesthetic. Many, but not all, of her dogs went to animal rescue organizations for care and adoption to good homes – ones that will not subject them to painful mutilation.
Huber has become the poster child for show breeders’ whining about the inroads they see being made on their ability to exploit animals for profit. They decry what they love to refer to as “AR” people – that abbreviation means animal rights. They believe that it is an insult to us if they suggest that we are so nuts as to believe that animals should have the right to not suffer abuse. The AKC seems to be unsure how to react to Huber’s prosecution and conviction, delivering a vague public statement about Huber’s conviction that indicates that she cannot use their “services” currently and that they like veterinary care to be used for the mutilation of pure bred dogs. But, their own legislative liaison has sought to portray people in animal welfare as being mentally unstable.
Let’s be clear: Huber was performing an absolutely unnecessary mutilation of a healthy animal. That is what the cropping of ears and docking of tails is. She was doing it without any professional veterinary medical care being provided. Her excuse is that she was married to a veterinarian for six and a half years. I am not making this up. I suppose you would be happy for me to cut off your ear without any anesthesia if I had been married to a physician at one time in the past, right?
Leaving aside the unnecessary nature of this form of abusive mutilation, doing this cropping without veterinary medical care is practicing veterinary medicine without a license and none of the rest of us is allowed to do that. Why should these show breeders be allowed to do that?
Huber has said publicly that she believes that humane organizations who took in her dogs after they were seized from her were delighted because they got dogs worth thousands of dollars for free. This display of arrogance and ignorance on her part discloses a total lack of comprehension of the work of private animal shelters. We are dedicated to saving the lives of animals whose lives are at risk. We don’t see any pet as being “worth” any sum of money, and we don’t care about pure bred dogs any more or any less than any other dog. The Richmond SPCA puts great amounts of time, money and love into rehabilitating dogs and cats who come to us with illnesses and injuries largely due to their mistreatment and neglect at the hands of humans. We don’t care whether they are pure bred or not.
The Washington Post article quotes her fellow show breeders in discussing Huber’s conviction for animal abuse as saying that “this has got to stop.” What exactly has got to stop? Our advocacy for animals to be treated with compassion and for the value of their lives and their sentient natures to be respected? Sorry, our dedicated work for that progress for animals will not stop. The belligerent arguments of these people that their dogs are their property and so they should be able to mistreat and abuse them however they wish is not a perspective that can ever be squared with a principled view of the role of humans as stewards of this planet. Compassionate and unselfish treatment of the animals who love us and depend on us can never be effectively portrayed as crazy. Just kind and decent.
Robin Robertson Starr is the chief executive officer of the Richmond SPCA. To read her biography or that of our other bloggers, please click here. Before posting a comment, please review our comment guidelines. Please note that our comment policy requires both your first and last name to be used as your screen name.
Comments