The Canine Review’s Response To Those Who Don’t Like Accountability

This website and blog, which says its mission is “protecting and defending animal enterprise,” apparently thinks all such enterprises should be protected from any kind of accountability, including even those enterprises that don’t protect canines.

Now that we have launched The Canine Review,  and our story about the AKC’s quality control challenges has been published, the group (whose members include a breeder we reported on; she’s one of five examples in the report), has just published an attack on our independent reporting.

You should read it because it contains the opposite of what we do: one-sided, baseless rhetoric instead of clear-eyed, fair, reporting.

Their attack on us purports to warn breeders that we are out to get them, when, in fact, the vast majority of breeder profiles we are doing will be positive – because we love the work most breeders do (including having brought me my own three wonderful labs), and because the great breeders deserve recognition, while the minority of abusive, deceptive breeders need to be identified.

We are not on the side of advertisers, nor subpar breeders, not vendors of unhealthy food or dangerous toys. And not on the side of those who threaten litigation when we report the truth. We are not on the side of animal welfare groups.  Our only agenda is facts.

Yes, we charge our readers for our journalism, which means that our credibility is our business. Not sensational, click-baiting stories to sell more ads.  Our obligation is to facts.

Which is what you’ll find as you read The Canine Review and we guide you to great people and great products while warning you of the opposite.


Thanks for reading.

Very sincerely yours,

Emily Brill

Emily J. Brill

Editor and Publisher

The Canine Review

follow the canine review on twitter

like us on facebook