http://dogknobit.com/2014/01/11/the-elevatorspeech-part-ii/
The Elevator Speech Part II
by Susi on January 11, 2014
in Animal Rights, Animal Welfare, Anti-Dog Legislation, Breed Clubs, Breeders, Breeding,
Elevator Speech, HSUS, MexiMutts, NAIA, Nathan Winograd, PETA, Political Correctness,
purebred dogs, Sato Dogs
For a long time now, purebred dog owners have hungered for guidance on how to push back
against opposition to own and ethically breed their dogs. It is for this reason, I suspect, that an email I wrote and posted on the National Purebred Dog Day Facebook page was shared over 220
times within hours. I was astonished.
The e-mail was sent to an artist who declined my offer to share her artwork on the NPDD page
because she couldn’t support dog breeding. I responded with a pleasant acknowledgement of her
note, but thought there were a few things she should know about purebred dog ownership and I
pointed them out to her.
Apparently, this resonated with Facebook friends of the page.
Over the last couple of years, I’ve been encouraged to write an expanded version of that e-mail,
but I’ve resisted doing it. Having an opinion hardly makes me an authority on most things (don’t
tell my kids), let alone on the art of persuasion; the Facebook experience changed my mind. If
over 200 people found a hastily written e-mail to an artist helpful enough to share with others,
maybe offering a few ideas is something I can do without coming across as a know-it-all. Don’t
tell my kids.
Of one thing I am certain: We need to stop waiting for someone else to speak up for us. It’s not
going to happen, and waiting for deliverance has only set us behind. If each of us connects with
one person, persuades just one person of the hypocrisy at the heart of the animal rights
movement, our efforts will grow exponentially and we will become a bona fide backlash
movement. I believe this.
In the course of an average week, we encounter people who don’t know what we know. They
don’t go to dog shows, belong to dog clubs, or read dog magazines. They don’t know the issues
we face, and they don’t much care. They’re not bad people, they’re just people unaffected by
issues that affect us. They might own a rescue dog because it seemed like a kind thing to do at
the time, but these folks aren’t any more invested in the shelter or animal rights movement than
they are in the dog fancy.
And you know what I say about people like that?
We need them.
We need them to be informed pet owners who know better than to donate to HSUS, and be able
to recognize falsehood when they hear it. We need them to think in spite of emotionally charged
TV ads from the HSUS. We need them to understand that ethical breeders aren’t responsible for
every bad thing that happens to a dog in this world, and it falls upon us to help them learn why.
We might meet them at a cocktail party or stand behind them as they buy dog food. We might
have twenty minutes to share our point of view, or mere moments to plant the seed of thought.
These quick “spiels” are called “elevator speeches” because we have our “audience” only for as
long as it takes to an elevator to go from one floor to another.
Before I go too much further, however, a word.
An “elevator speech” is beyond the comfort level of shy or reserved people, one reason I’ve
resisted writing an article like this up until now. It’s not difficult for me to strike up a
conversation with a stranger, but it is for others. Stay true to your nature and your presentation
will be more authentic. My suggestions will work in e-mails, as part of a letter to the editor,
included in a comment under a Facebook post, and with someone you know. What’s important is
that each of us does something.
The “elevator speech:” The opening, the delivery, and the content:
What do you suppose is the most important element of an elevator speech?
In my view, it’s the delivery. Delivery is what gets someone to listen to us. It’s what made the
phrase, “I’ll be back” so menacing when Arnold Schwarzenegger said it, not so much when
someone else did. It’s what would make James Earl Jones reading a phone book an enjoyable
experience.
He promised to come back. And he did.
Animal rights, rescue advocacy, anti-breeder sentiment – these are emotional topics, but once a
temper is lost or our emotional investment is revealed, we become vulnerable, and our message
is dismissed because we’re dismissed. The more pleasant and matter-of-fact our delivery is,
the more effective we are.
Dog fanciers are portrayed as snotty, insensitive, and rude by our opposition, so don’t be those
things. An amiable, engaging, and matter-of-fact demeanor goes far in disarming hostility and
suggests that the points you’re making are so irrefutable as to be common knowledge (it’s just
that the boob you’re talking to missed the memo). Kidding aside, don’t mistake attitude for
condescension. Informing an inquiring tourist that the Grand Canyon is in Arizona isn’t
condescension, it’s a statement of fact. That’s how you want to present your information, and
you want to present it in a way that leaves the tourist with the impression of Americans as a
helpful, pleasant lot (or dog fanciers as reasonable people).
The Opening
When a conversation at a party or gathering turns to pet in general, or dogs in particular, your
“opening” is easy, but how does one start a conversation with a stranger?
Look for common ground that suggests association with a dog. If you happen to be standing
near a person holding the leash to, say, a German Shepherd, you might say in a friendly manner,
“German Shepherds are a great breed! What a shame what the animal rights movement is doing
to them.”
The natural response to your statement will either be agreement or puzzlement. “What is the
animal rights movement doing to German Shepherds?” they might ask you, and that’s your
opening.
At a check-out line, you might find yourself behind a person buying dog food, a toy or treats, and
you might ask what kind of dog they own, or for whom they’re buying the treat. If it’s a
particular breed, again you can say, “What a shame what the animal rights movement is doing to
(name the breed).”
Your answer to their puzzlement, of course, is that the animal rights movement is legislating
ethical, responsible breeders invested in their breed out of existence, and leaving only
substandard breeders to breed unsound puppies in unstimulating environments. Your answer is
that the animal rights movements has, at its core, a radical agenda that seeks to eliminate pet
ownership.
Buying dog food is a golden opportunity to connect with other dog owners
If the dog owner qualifies their breed as a “rescue,” as in, “It’s a rescue Beagle,” you’ll want to
ask first if the dog came from a dedicated breed rescue group. It not, you might ask with feigned
innocence, “Is a rescue Beagle different from a Beagle bought from a responsible, ethical
breeder? Huh.” Depending upon their answer, you may inquire how they know that their dog is,
in fact, from the United States (if it’s not, see below for all the reasons importation from other
countries isn’t a good thing). You might ask if they’re concerned about creating a market for
substandard, unethical breeders who have found a lucrative market in producing “rescue” dogs.
You might ask if they realize that the entire breed will suffer as “shelter dogs” supplant dogs
bred by responsible breeders dedicated to the preservation of their breed.
Content:
For my purposes, “content” refers to data, and you should learn as many of these statistical
“tidbits” as you can since they can be inserted anytime, anywhere, and when your “target” least
expects to hear them;
A favorite strategy of the “opposition” is to challenge you for the source of your fact, so I’ve
included them;
Another favorite tact is to trash the source when its data can’t be disputed. If the source is
challenged for being biased, such as the AKC, simply turn the tables on your “opponent” and
insist that they provide their own data, then challenge that source as being no less biased, and, in
fact, has more to gain financially by promoting humane relocations, perpetuating the mythology
of overpopulation, partnering with pet store chains in adoption drives, and driving dedicated
breeders (i.e., the competition) out of the market.
Fallacious accusation: The Dog Fancy is the Problem
The following list is helpful when the fancy is accused of turning its back on shelter dogs. The
AKC compiled these statistics in 2007 through a survey of member breed clubs and is currently
updating them, but new figures were not yet available at the time of this article:

Nearly 33% of dogs acquired by member club rescue committees come from shelters,
animal control and pounds, and over 90% of them come without AKC papers (the point
you’re making by mentioning the lack of registration papers is that dog fanciers have
nothing to gain by rescuing dogs of their own breed);

Nearly 94% of breed clubs are directly involved in rescue efforts for their breeds. Ed
Note: That number is probably closer to 100% since the survey was taken;

Over 77% of clubs work with other, non AKC-affiliated rescue organizations to transport,
foster and adopt-out dogs. Ed Note: That number is probably much higher now;

A quarter of breed clubs report they take in more than 20 dogs each year. Half of them
rescue over 60 dogs, 14% rescue 200 or more, and 16% of breed clubs report rescuing
over 1,000 dogs a year;

While some clubs ask owners surrendering a dog to make a donation for the cost of care,
over 77% do not (as of 2007);
From www.nathanwinograd.com
The “overpopulation” myth
Over the past twenty years, the dog overpopulation has been significantly reduced, if not
altogether ended in many parts of the US, in large part because spay and neuters have led to a
reduction of animals turned in to shelters. Some shelters have had to abandon and replace their
traditional role of caring for and finding homes for local pets and have turned to importing pets
for the local pet marketplace; Despite regional differences showing a massive drop in actual
shelter numbers, the overpopulation myth not only continues, but perpetuates. Patti Strand of the
NAIA wrote: “The practice of relocating pets from a crowded shelter to one with empty runs
within the same community also leads to confusion if the source of the animals is not reported.
The practice itself may be reasonable and humane if it increases adoptions, but too often all
participating shelters count the same animals in their totals inflating the number of shelter
animals reported for a given community.”

As many as 300,000 puppies a year are imported yearly based on early estimates; Source:
G. Gale Galland, Veterinarian Center for Disease Control Division of Global Migration
and Quarantine 2007;

199,000 dogs entered the US from Mexico that year alone; Source: Center for Disease
Control report in 2006;

Not counted in the CDC’s estimated number of imports are dogs brought into the US
from Mexico by other groups such as Compassion Without Borders (which partners with
another group in Albuquerque, New Mexico to bring MexiMutts into the U.S), United
Hope for Animals in Southern California, BlueRoadRunner, and SAMM (Save a
Mexican Mutt), or are only a handful of such groups bringing dogs into the United States
from Mexico Source: TheDogPlace;

Also not included are organizations (i.e. Islanddogs), which relocate dogs from Central
America or the West Indies (i.e., AARP which has a subsidiary corporation in Florida);

Estimates are that 10,000 puppies entered San Diego County from Mexico in just one
year. Some dogs only a few weeks old are sold for $1,000 each in shopping center
parking lots on the street. Source: California Border Puppy Task Force;

Of those 300,000 imported dogs, approximately 25% are either too young to be
vaccinated, or lacked proof of valid rabies vaccination;** At a recent NAIA conference,
it was reported that one litter of puppies was found to have been spayed and neutered
before their eyes had even opened;

Import trends suggest that an increasing number of unvaccinated puppies are being
imported into the United States, mostly through commercial resale or rescue operations.”
**
**Source: The Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases of the Center for Disease Control in a
filed report regarding Importation of Dogs into the United States;

Although most shelters use the issue of ‘pet overpopulation’ to raise funds, … few of
them have sufficient records to support the term. In fact, a major impediment to solving
the US stray and surplus pet problems is the lack of reliable shelter statistics. Source:
Patti Strand, NAIA;

The average person is largely unaware of massive importations of dogs, such as the Sato
Dog Project (championed by PETA). According to their own records, the project had
already imported 14,000 street dogs from Puerto Rico by 2003, and 100-200 dogs are still
brought in monthly and sold for $200- $250 a piece. Critics maintain that rescuing these
dogs does little to reduce the problem of stray dogs in Puerto Rico and ends up fueling
overcrowding at the U.S. shelters. Source: NBC News.com;

Since 2006, the importation numbers per year have [likely] doubled. Importation from
Canada, Mexico, Central America and the West Indies, where no regulations are
required, continues on a daily basis. Source: L.D. Witouski, AKC judge with an Associate
Degree in Law, AKC Legislative Liaison and Editor of The Dog Place;

In Colorado, shelters and rescues imported more than 13,000 dogs for adoption during
2011 alone, displacing local Colorado dogs. Source: Colorado Department of Agriculture
The Animal Rights Scam
63% of Americans think that HSUS is affiliated with their local humane society or pet shelter,
and 59% think that that the organization “contributes most of its money to local organizations
that care for dogs and cats.” Think again.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) raises over a million dollars a year but
gives only 1% of its budget to local pet shelters;*

The Humane Society of the Untied States (HSUS) does not operate a single animal
shelter;*

$17 million dollars of donations that might have helped local shelters save cats and dogs
has instead been socked away to HSUS’ pension fund;*

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), “champion of pets” has killed
29,398 pets at its headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia since 1998. Source: Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services;

Legislation was introduced in New York in 2009 which would have made it illegal for
shelters, including the ASPCA, to kill animals that rescue groups were willing to save. It
was estimated that if the law passed, 25,000 animals a year would be saved. Ed Sayres,
former CEO of the ASPCA, made it his personal mission to ensure that the law would
not, killing it in the legislature every year. Since then, an estimated 100,000 animals that
had an immediate place to go have been killed. Source: “The Death of 100,000
Animals,” November 13, 2013 by Nathan J. Winograd;

While Lois Lerner’s IRS was targeting specific political groups, Members of Congress
called for an investigation into the lobbying activities of the Humane Society of the
United States, a tax-exempt group Lerner admitted being involved with as an “active
member;” Source: HumaneWatch.org;

Of the 1,992 cats and dogs that PETA received in 2012, 1,911 were killed. That’s a kill
rate of 95.9 percent. Source: Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services; See http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf

Less than four percent of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a
nonprofit organization promoting preventive medicine and research alternatives, are
actual physicians, and one of them is former PETA Foundation president, Neal Barnard.
Source: Center for Consumer Freedom;

Of the $1.88 million HSUS raised to “help” animals, $1.8 million went into the pockets
of for-profit solicitors; Source: Center for Consumer Freedom;

71% of New York rescue groups and 63% of Florida rescue groups reported shelters
killing the very animals they had offered to save. Source: “The Lie at the Heart of the
Killing,” March 12, 2013 by Nathan J. Winograd;
In 2003, in more than 15 states, PETA handed out his graphic comic titled “Your Mommy Kills
Animals” to children accompanying women wearing fur outside holiday performances of The
Nutcracker and other theatrical shows.

PETA often claims that they only kill animals that are injured or sick. But in 2005 police
caught PETA employees dumping recently killed animals that were healthy and
adoptable just hours before. Source: Center for Consumer Freedom;

Solicitation campaigns in Massachusetts done on behalf of the Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS) netted zero dollars for animals in 2012. Source: Massachusetts
attorney general;

In 2012, the Humane Society of the United States raised $1.8 million. Only 4% actually
went to help animals: Source: The California Attorney General
*Source: HumaneWatch.org
Note: I’ve used Nathan Winograd as a source, which may raise some eyebrows. He’s not a
friend of the dog fancy, but neither is he a friend of the HSUS or PETA. His numbers, as far as I
know, are well researched and useful to the conversation about overpopulation myth. We may
not agree on everything with Mr. Winograd, but we don’t disagree with this statement: “In the
end, killing is occurring in our nation’s shelters not because there are too many animals, but
because killing is easier than doing what is necessary to stop it, and because as heartless as that
reason is, shelter directors have been allowed to do it anyway. Why? Because the people who
should be their fiercest critics—those within the animal protection movement itself—have
provided them political cover by falsely portraying the killing that they do as a necessity born of
pet overpopulation.
It’s hard to know where to stop when providing statistics because there are just so many of them.
This should be enough to get you started, and when the AKC releases its updated survey
numbers, you can be sure I’ll write about it here.
Be bold in taking this “fight” to the opposition by being an advocate for your dogs. HSUS and its
ilk has had twenty years to perfect their deception, and it will take time for us to undo what
they’ve done. The alternative is unthinkable.