The Sale of Puppies Online

This article originally appeared in The Fancy Speaks column in the February 10, 2012 issue of Dog News. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

The Sale of Puppies Online

Carlotta Cooper

I read the January 20, 2012 DOG NEWS editorial “Regulating The Sale Of Puppies Online” with concern. Although it’s clear that the editorial is well-intentioned, it comes dangerously close to embracing the PUPS bill which is now in Congress. And PUPS, H.R. 835/S. 707, would be very harmful for hobby dog breeders.

The editorial argues that the Internet is used for the sale of dogs, which is true, and that some of these dogs come from places which have no policy or guidelines for their sale. Some even come from “the unregulated commercial breeder.” This is also probably true. The editorial goes on to ask, “Who is there to determine whether or not the seller is responsible? Who establishes the policy to protect the dog in these situations whether or not it is a commercial or homebred sale?”

I would like to point out that people have been selling dogs by means of newspaper classified ads, magazine ads, billboard notices, and other forms of commerce and advertising for generations. No one has been regulating these retail sales directly to the public. The thinking has always been that the buyer needs to be careful when buying anything, from anyone. Caveat emptor has a very real meaning when it comes to buying a pet. The buyer should exercise due caution when buying a puppy or dog, whether they are buying from a magazine, newspaper, or over the Internet. It is not the responsibility of the government to regulate the sale of puppies for the buyer. It is up to the buyer to use some good judgment when making a purchase. This hasn’t changed since people were buying puppies from ads in dog magazines in the 1980s, or buying dogs at any other time in history.

Large commercial breeders who are inspected by the USDA are already regulated and they do report their wholesale sales. However, the retail sale of puppies and dogs directly to individual buyers has never been regulated at the federal level. In many states this kind of sale is now regulated at the state level, if you sell more than x number of puppies per year. In some states it is covered under a sales and use tax, the same kind of tax that covers the sale of Girl Scout Cookies or having a yard sale. If you sell more than a certain number of puppies per year in some states you would be required to get a business and/or kennel license so you could regularly report your tax income from sales.

HSUS calls the fact that retail sales to individuals are not regulated at the federal level a “loophole” and, in PUPS, they are trying to change this situation. But this exemption of retail sales for small breeders is not a loophole. It is the way the law was intended to work. In DDAL vs. Veneman (2003), the case in which the Doris Day Animal League sued the USDA to try to make them inspect retail breeders (home, hobby, show breeders), the judge gave a clear ruling that small breeders were not the same as pet stores and did not have to be regulated or inspected as such. HSUS has been trying to change the law through PAWS and PUPS ever since that time.

These small hobby breeders and others who sell puppies and dogs by retail means were not meant to be regulated in the same manner as large commercial breeders. But that’s what PUPS would do.

It is up to the buyer, not to the government, to check out the person who sells a puppy. Otherwise, all of us who breed dogs are going to have the USDA visiting our homes to see how we keep and raise our puppies.

Now, it’s true, as the editorial mentions, that many people don’t like the idea of “regulation,” but in this case regulation cuts right to the core of everyone who breeds and shows dogs. If PUPS becomes law it would cripple breeders who show, breed dogs for performance, and who breed quality companion dogs. We would be required to meet the same USDA standards that are in place for large commercial breeders, even though we raise puppies in our homes. Most of us could not do this and the result would be the end of countless serious breeding programs in the show world, along with the end of precious bloodlines and, in some cases, the end of breeds.

The AKC sees this, too. On January 26, 2012 they sent a letter to members of Congress from Dennis Sprung with their concerns about PUPS. Among other things it says:

“The AKC does not oppose the concept of regulating high volume breeder retailers but we believe that the definitions proposed in this bill are misleading, overly broad, and potentially damaging to responsible breeders who individually maintain and breed only a few dogs in their homes.

“Although PUPS was designed to regulate internet sales of puppies, it would require anyone who owns or co-owns even a few female dogs that produce 50 or more puppies offered for sale in a year to be regulated under existing USDA dog "dealer" regulations. These regulations are designed for high-volume commercial kennels that produce puppies for wholesale, and require a USDA commercial license, maintenance of specified commercial kennel engineering standards and regular inspections. They are not appropriate for small breeders who may keep only a few dogs in their homes.”

In short, AKC opposes PUPS as it is written and asked members of Congress to withhold their support.

As it is written, PUPS would also regulate anyone who sells these puppies by any means, not just over the Internet. It specifically includes anyone who “sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper),” so it does not just intend to regulate people who sell over the Internet.

I doubt I have to mention how many show breeders have web sites or sell puppies online. You would also fall under this bill for Internet regulation of puppy sales.

PUPS is a very dangerous bill that will harm all of us who breed and show dogs. If you haven’t contacted your legislators to ask them to withhold support for PUPS, you can contact them by visiting this site: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

Here is some more information about PUPS:

WHAT PUPS DOES:

• Abandons traditional determination between wholesale and retail---so that

USDA can regulate home/hobby breeders who don't sell to pet stores.

• Begins USDA regulation of anyone (with 1 intact female dog over 4 months of

age) who sells, places, or adopts out more than 50 dogs in a year ... to start.

Could easily be amended down to 10 ... to 2.

• Takes away your right to privacy in your own home. USDA or their contractors

can without notice enter your home and inspect it if they SUSPECT you might

meet criteria for regulation.

• Over-regulates responsible home breeders out of existence. Mandates non-

porous floors, kennel sizes, floor drains, and pages of requirements impossible

for most home breeders to follow.

• Forces shelters, and home/hobby breeders to redesign their current facilities in

order to meet federal standards.

• Establishes government controlled exercise standards that are not scientifically

proven.

• Sets precedent with exercise standards for future rigid socialization and

breeding standards that would remove owner’s flexibility to use professional

judgment based on breed and purpose.

• Reduces the ability of the American public to obtain healthy privately bred or

rescue dogs of their choosing.

• Places an unfunded mandate on Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) and overextends their enforcement ability.

• Fails to exempt sportsmen, sporting dog trainers, and hunting clubs from being

regulated alongside in-home sellers.

• Adds more federal oversight and regulation into Americans’ daily lives.

Jerry Brown - Still Crazy After All These Years

You are known by the company you keep.

SB 917, the bill that would criminalize someone who would sell or give away kittens or puppies at the local market, was signed into law today by Governor Brown. The criminal animal cruelty statute now will include public sales of animals, making sales a misdemeanor offense right up there in the same league with beating, maiming, and torturing.

Sadly, this means that people will be afraid to place animals at all, and instead of animals finding homes, more dogs and cats will become homeless, to starve or be hit by a car; or, they might end up in the local shelter where they will add to the death toll. The good Samaritan who attempts to find homes for the litter of kittens under his porch would end up with a criminal record. Nice, huh?

One would think that a former Attorney General for the state would see this bill for what it is....a mockery of justice. We've got nothing more important to do than criminalize more and more people? The courts aren't crowded enough? Perhaps Brown views more criminals and potential criminals as job security for government workers. We'll have a fine time rounding everybody up and punishing them. And get paid for it, too!

Good ol' "Governor Moonbeam" Brown....wiser? Nah, just older. 

The South Responds

The article below originally appeared in the May 27, 2011 issue of Dog News. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

The South Responds

Carlotta Cooper

I was very happy to see Matt Stander writing about “The Alabama Effect” in the May 13 issue of DOG NEWS. However, as a daughter of the South, I have a slightly different take on the situation.

I think that unless you live in the South, or perhaps unless you were born and raised here, you may not be sensitive to the disdain that comes from some of our northern friends. It applies even to the way we in the South treat our dogs. Just in the last month I’ve been told on e-mail lists and Facebook that people in the South do not give their dogs heartworm medicine and that people in the South have “an attitude of casual cruelty toward animals.” I have a suspicion that there are probably people in the north who think we are all barefoot and toothless, too. (I assure you, I have lots of shoes and all my teeth.)

I don’t know what to do about some of these stereotypes, but most people in the South take very good care of their dogs. Your dog breeder friends treat their dogs the same way the rest of you do. Puppy buyers are likely to raise and love puppies the same way as people anywhere else in the country. And cruelty is not confined to any one region of the country.

Per “The Alabama Effect,” I personally despise these northern shelters, along with the ASPCA, which have been coming down to the South to pluck dogs from shelters and even out of people’s yards in the wake of devastating tornadoes and now flooding. They claim to be saving animals but what they are really doing is making sure that the owners of these animals will never be able to be reunited with their pets.

For someone who has lost their home in a tornado, who may have family members who are injured or dead, and their dog is missing, they may be hoping that someone has kindly found the dog and taken him to their local shelter. They have no idea that there is a “dog relocation program” in place to take their poor dog off to a state a thousand miles away and that they will never have a chance to see their dog again. It seems horrible to me that these animals are being whisked away before their owners even have a chance to get their lives back together and start searching for them. These dogs are not ordinary stray dogs or unwanted dogs. These dogs are homeless due to disasters and they should not be taken out of their states.

Yet, these shelters in northern states, and elsewhere (there are some midwestern and other states involved now, too), are taking the dogs and putting them up for adoption! They are making money from the tragedies that have befallen other human beings by selling their dogs. I honestly can’t think of a much lower thing to do than that. And they are doing all this in the name of “saving the dogs.” Saving them from being found by their owners? Saving them from going home? They have taken money-making and taking dogs from their owners to new depths.

My heart really goes out to the owners of these lost dogs who will never be able to find them.

So, I do agree with a great deal in “The Alabama Effect,” but for me the onus is on these shelters which have taken the dogs. But I suppose it takes both shelters on the giving and receiving end to make this terrible system work and it should be shut down. What began as a good idea to send shelter animals where they could be adopted has now become a big-time money-making business for shelters in which animals are being taken away from owners who want their pets back. Last time I checked, shelters were not supposed to be in the business of stealing animals from people or selling them like pet stores. What’s more, these shelters are touting these dogs as “Tornado Dogs!” as a selling point! They’re trying to make people feel sorry for the dogs in order to get them adopted. How about the poor families who are looking for their pets? Doesn’t anyone feel sorry for them?

Please tell your friends to avoid shelters which engage in these practices. If they are taking animals from areas that have been hit by tornadoes and flooding, there are most likely owners who don’t know where their dogs are. Tell those shelters that people want their pets back. The least they can do is post pictures of the animals they have taken so owners can search for their pets online. Some shelters which have taken dogs have refused to do even that and they are refusing to answer anymore questions about the dogs they have taken.

And, please remember that the South is part of the United States. There are cultural differences here but we do love dogs very much. Rednecks can be nice people, too. Hunters love dogs. Good ol’ boys love dogs. If you want to find people who have a problem with dogs in the South, it’s likely to be someone’s stately grandmother who hates dirt and hair, but she would never hurt an animal.

When you’re posting on e-mail lists and other places, you might try to remember that about half the people reading your messages are from the South and they might be offended when you make stupid comments about people from the South not taking care of their dogs. I spend a lot of money every year on heartworm medicine, flea and tick prevention, vaccinations, and all the rest, for my five dogs, so such comments really don’t go down well. And everyone I know does the same for their dogs. We fought this war once so let’s not fight it again over dog care.

A Nation of Pet Lovers Loses Its Way

This article originally appeared in the April 22, 2011 issue of Dog News. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

A Nation of Pet Lovers Loses Its Way

Carlotta Cooper

I’ve been an anglophile most of my life. I grew up loving all thing British, or English, from the language to the history of the British Isles. I spent some time in the country when I was in school. Inevitably, I segued into animals that were developed in Britain. I enjoyed the time I spent in Britain and the people I met were universally pleasant, though I do recall a few cab drivers with some rather colorful language.

All that was a few years ago. Maybe things change. That was before I became aware of the animal rights movement and the RSPCA.

The RSPCA has a reputation in Great Britain similar to that of HSUS in this country and is known for seizing pets and other animals unreasonably, based on cases highlighted in the media. If you google “RSPCA seizes pets” you will find hundreds of such stories, including stories about the RSPCA seizing overweight pets from their owners. They are also on record in the infamous documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed with comments about purebred dogs such as then Chief Vet Mark Evans calling dog shows “a parade of mutants.” Evans is quoted extensively in the program.

In fact, the RSPCA received so much attention for their role in Pedigree Dogs Exposed that they had to set up Question & Answer pages for the public. On these pages you can find such comments about purebred dogs as these:

—The RSPCA is extremely concerned about the unacceptably high levels of

disability, deformity and disease affecting pedigree dogs.

— Hundreds of thousands of dogs are vulnerable to unnecessary illness, pain and

disability or behavioural problems because they’re bred primarily for how they

look rather than with health, welfare and temperament in mind...

—We believe that both the selective breeding of dogs primarily for appearance and

the intensive breeding of closely related dogs for anything other than

scientifically proven welfare reasons is morally unjustifiable...

—When choosing which animals to breed from, there’s often no merit attached to

an animal’s health, welfare or temperament - and often the attributes rated most

highly can result in disability or illness...

— Pedigree dog owners that show their dogs obviously want their animals to do

well at shows and/or produce popular offspring. So the dogs with the most

‘desirable’ attributes (i.e. those that most closely match the relevant breed

standard) are bred from most frequently. The selected features may easily

become exaggerated, causing dogs to suffer more health and welfare problems

and a reduced quality of life...

I think the impression left on the reader is that people who breed and show dogs only care for a dog’s appearance and give little thought to the dog’s health or temperament. There is certainly the impression given, in my opinion, that massive numbers of purebred dogs (or “pedigree dogs,” as they are called in Britain) are sick and deformed.

The RSPCA also commissioned a 76-page study which denigrated The Kennel Club in Britain and the breeding practices of pedigree dog breeders. “The Kennel Club, breed societies, and the pedigree dog showing community have formally endorsed the inbreeding of dogs,” it said. This was stated despite the fact that it was estimated that less than 1 percent of dogs registered with The Kennel Club were the result of first degree matings. “Much of the suffering which some pedigree dogs endure is unnecessary and a substantial part could be avoided with revised practices.”

Some of the suggestions that came out of the report included:

— The banning of first degree and second degree matings (e.g., parent and offspring, siblings, grandparent and offspring or half-siblings).

—Open studbooks.

—Conducting a full ethical review of the health and welfare of current breeds. This could inform decisions, such as to enforce rapid out-crossing or (as suggested by some), in extreme cases even to phase out some breeds.

—Make registration of pedigree dogs conditional upon both parents undergoing compulsory screening tests for prioritised disorders.

—Training and accreditation of judges to prioritise health, welfare and behaviour in the show ring.

—Development of schemes for calculating Estimated Breeding Values (EBVs) for disorders influenced by genetic factors. The EBV of an animal for any trait predicts the average performance of its offspring for that trait.

The RSPCA isn’t an organization concerned with helping sad puppies and kittens. It’s an animal rights group of exactly the same ilk as HSUS, with a similar agenda and the same attitude toward dog breeders and purebred dogs.

I think it’s hard to judge just how the British dog-owning public feels about pets and pedigree dogs these days. Pedigree Dogs Exposed seems to have certainly had a very negative effect on the perception of purebred dogs and dog breeders. A list member of the Pet-Law e-mail group looked up the following comments following stories about dog shows or dog breeding in the British popular press, but comments like these are easy to find on British web sites:

*Dog show-breeding stinks. The people who breed these dogs don't give a toss for their animals' welfare, no matter what they say.

*The people who breed those dysfunctional monstrosities ought to be jailed.

*There's only one breed: DOGS (read: cross-breeds, mongrels). Those which are given the label "breeds" are inbred mutants (sic).

*These kennel clubs are disgusting. The poor creatures are just status symbols for the owners and nothing else; owners who are usually loners - childless, anti-social, eccentric, vain, pompous creeps who are completely ignorant of biology.

-------

And this one:

*Those dog breeders should be ABSOLUTELY ashamed of themselves!!!!!!!

*Crufts breeders can be disgusted all they like, the reality is the rest of the rational thinking public is disgusted with them for breeding dogs with deformities and health problems!

*These people are beneath contempt

*Then quite simply these people are not dog lovers, if they would rather have a sick and deformed dog than a healthy dog. I used to want to go to crufts as a child, as a dog lover, now i wouldnt touch the place.

*What utter morons these dog breeders are, more concerned with "correctness" than the welfare of the dogs they breed as usual.

*Some of these dog breeders really sound like a bunch of Nazis !!! Try to imagine if the same practices were applied to creating genetically pure breeds of humans . . . oh wait, that did happen, in WW2 by . . . the Nazis !!!

As mentioned, comments like these are by no means rare following stories about dog shows or dog breeders or breeding in Britain. There are virulent attacks online about pedigree dogs now, since the film Pedigree Dogs Exposed. Just how common this feeling was prior to the documentary, I don’t know, but Britain does not seem to be a friendly place for dog breeding these days. It’s possible this is a very vocal minority, but there are few people writing in defense of dog breeders or pedigree dogs, at least online.

As if this kind of bashing weren’t enough, it’s not unusual to see headlines like this one in the popular British press: “Nation of animal lovers? Study shows 10m pets suffer mental or physical stress.” Is that really possible, you may ask? Out of a nation with approximately eight million dogs, and eight million cats according to the Pet Food Manufacturers Association in Britain, this study claims that 10 million of these pets are suffering mental or physical stress? Of course, this study, conducted by the PDSA (Never heard of it? Apparently it stands for pets in need of vets, but I can’t figure out the acronym), claims far higher numbers for cats, and includes rabbits in the study. They also sell pet insurance. I’m not quite sure how they are a charity. They take people to task if they don’t feed a commercial dog food; and they are very unhappy if animals are left alone for more than four (yes 4) hours per day. I’m not sure how people are supposed to leave the home and work to buy pet food. They claim that rabbits are “neglected” and forced to live on their own, which leads to boredom and stress. In short, they have their ideas about how pets should be treated, and they want to bash millions of pet owners who have different ideas.

This sort of sensational report is common in Britain and it makes front page news. All too often it seems to lead to changes in the way people actually think about animals and treat them. It can even lead to legislative changes — all based on ideas that are pulled out of the air, with absolutely no science or experience to back them up. There can even be misstatements of facts in these reports, such as the disagreement about the pet population numbers above.

Could it possibly be that the RSPCA, groups like PDSA, and others are following in the footsteps of Jemima Harrison and Pedigree Dogs Exposed? They have seen that the more they can rile the British public about animals, the more they may be able to cash in on the public’s concern for animals? I think it’s true that the British are great animal lovers. It’s just a shame that they have been led so far astray that so many of them no longer recognize when they are being taken for a ride. They think dog breeders are their enemy, and pedigree dogs are mutants. They take advice about caring for pets from organizations like the RSPCA which seizes pets, and the PDSA which has very suspect ideas about how animals should be treated. Whatever happened to British common sense?

Crocodile Tears

published in Dog News Feb 11, 2011
(reprinted by permission of the author)

Hello;

In your latest editorial regarding the 'unfit 15' or, if you prefer, the 'high profile breeds' targeted for attack by the Kennel Club, you ask if the move is really due to the concern of the KC or 'pressure of the animals rightists'.

Straight from the 'blog' by animal rights supporter Jemima Harrison, producer of Pedigreed Dogs Exposed:
"The 15 breeds are: Basset Hound, Bloodhound, Bulldog, Chow Chow, Clumber Spaniel, Dogue de Bordeaux, French Bulldog, German Shepherd Dog, Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff, Pekingese, Pug, Shar-Pei, the St Bernard and - da-daa - the Chinese Crested. I'll be demanding all the credit/blame for the inclusion of this last one as it was me who drew the KC's attention to the fact that breeders are resorting to ridiculous means to ensure their dogs are entirely free of hair in all the right places.



That quote should answer your question.

Harrison claims her blog is about:

"the latest news and views regarding inherited disorders and conformation issues in purebred dogs."

Conformation:

"The structure or outline of an item or entity, determined by the arrangement of its parts."

and I am sure we can agree that hair placement is not an "in'hair'ed ( sorry could not resist) disorder.


How does clipping or shaving a dog have anything to do with either of these issues? And yet the KC added the Crested to the 'unfit' list after the blog was published if the dog had a "skin rash" that might be caused by hair removal. A skin rash is something that a judge might be able to see or evaluate but is it a 'conformation or inherited disorder' issue? So you tell me , who is running the (dog) show?


Poodle breeders beware.. also anyone else who dares to trim, shave, or groom your dog for the show ring. Stripping? Well, sort of like shaving. Clipping? Also pretty close. Dare to bathe your dog? Better not. Might make his/her coat 'different'. Why single out just the Chinese Crested? What about the other hairless breeds? Why just the St. Bernard and not the Newfoundland? and so on and so on..


As for the 'vet checks' .. how silly is that? 'On the day' has very little to do with breeding healthy dogs. If a judge cannot see a limping dog and excuse it then they should not be judging but to expect a judge to ascertain that a dog can pass some sort of 'marathon' of 'moderate' exercise regardless of weather or age of the exhibit.. or to disqualify a dog who may have a slightly broken out coat due to external forces seems pretty extreme, if not downright arbitrary.


Which dog would you prefer,the one who has hives due to a bee sting or one who has kidney failure? Something that no judge.. or even veterinarian on the day can ascertain.


As a judge myself. I often say, the proof is in the breeding and type, temperament and soundness is on the day. Many good dogs have a bad day but not many bad dogs have constantly winning days. Judges are now to be 'second guessed' after years of experience in the ring and, for many, in the whelping box. Why bother? is what I will suppose many will say and rightfully so. I also think that many good dogs will stay at home rather than be put under some sort of false microscope of 'health checks' that are at best capricious and subjective. Or perhaps many breeds will start their own registries, keep their own stud books and hold their own shows with judges that pass muster for their chosen breeds. In other words, specialties with specialty judges only awarding only dogs that the breed clubs find worthy of the title of 'breed' champion. Or maybe they will just win the breed at a 'regular' show, go home after that and say 'stuff it'.


Animal righters want nothing to do with the show ring, except to criticize breeders and those who dare to show their dogs, so any barrier to our hobby works for them. What is insidious is their own slouching towards Bethlehem' approach. Regardless of what the headers or titles on their blogs say. Don't be fooled. This has nothing to do with dogs or their health and everything to do with control. So far it seems to be working in some venues.


Appeasement of these people ( the animal rightists) will not work. NOTHING will ever be 'good enough' and the more we 'come to the middle' the more the middle shifts in their direction.


It seems a shame that these words by one of the most revered of British statesmen have been so soon forgotten:
"

There is no greater mistake than to suppose that platitudes, smooth words, and timid policies offer a path to safety."
"An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last."
Winston Churchill

So far the crocodile has been well fed with policies that are being sacrificed in the name of 'public opinion'. How much more feeding will he want? More than we should be willing to give.


Let's starve this crocodile. I, for one, won't shed any tears at his demise.


Jan Dykema
Bestuvall Bull Terriers
"Best Breed On A Lead"

The Disappearance of Animal Husbandry

This article originally appeared in the February 11, 2011 issue of Dog News. It is posted here by permission of the author.

The Disappearance of Animal Husbandry

Carlotta Cooper

Animal husbandry has been practiced for thousands of years; it’s been practiced ever since humans began domesticating and keeping animals. Yet today there are many people who don’t know what animal husbandry is. Recently the editor of a book on farming asked me if husbandry meant breeding or mating, which is a sad reflection on our educational system and her own knowledge. Just to clarify, animal husbandry is the practice of breeding and raising animals. The term is often applied to agriculture and livestock but it can be applied to all of the animal sciences which relate to domestic animals. Thus, I would say that breeding dogs is an animal husbandry practice. Cleaning your dogs’ ears on a regular basis is good animal husbandry. Practicing good grooming falls under animal husbandry, and so on.

Recently in Virginia (December 2010), a woman named Jean Cyhanick was convicted of cruelty to animals largely due to the fact that several of her dogs needed to have their teeth cleaned. I am not making this up or exaggerating it. You can read accounts of the woman’s trial on the Internet. . It was stipulated at the trial (both sides agreed) that most of Ms. Cyhanick’s dogs were in good condition. There was no seizure or raid in this case. However, Virginia law contains a provision that defines emergency veterinary treatment in the following terms:

... veterinary treatment to stabilize a life-threatening condition, alleviate suffering, prevent further disease transmission, or prevent further disease progression.

§ 3.2-6570. Cruelty to animals; penalty.

A. Any person who: ... (ii) deprives any animal of necessary ... emergency veterinary treatment ... is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

A Class 1 misdemeanor is the highest misdemeanor in Virginia law and is punishable by up to a year in jail and/or a fine of up to $2500. The next step up is a felony.

This is the law that was applied to Ms. Cyhanick’s dogs and their teeth, making tartar build-up into a veterinary emergency leading to animal cruelty.

There were several other charges. Ms. Cyhanick was a commercial breeder of small and Toy dogs. She had fewer than the 30 dogs allowed under Virginia law. However, because she had two relatives living with her, their dogs were also counted in her total, putting her one bitch over the limit. She was also charged with animal cruelty because two old dogs had old, healed eye injuries. And, she was charged with improper record-keeping and for selling two underage puppies. She sold a puppy that was six weeks old; Virginia law requires puppies to be seven weeks old. The original puppy sold was returned by the buyer. She asked him to choose an older puppy from another litter. He refused and insisted on getting another puppy from the same litter. After he did so, he turned her in to the authorities.

As a result of her convictions, Ms. Cyhanick will never again be able to sell dogs. She is facing several thousand dollars in fines, plus court costs and attorney fees. And, she must get rid of all but four of her dogs.

Virginia law also requires that commercial breeders obtain a pre-breeding vet approval before each bitch is bred. Ms. Cyhanick did not obtain those approvals.

It was obvious to observers that Ms. Cyhanick was railroaded in court on these dubious charges because she was a commercial breeder and the locals wanted to put her out of business, despite the fact that she had a very clean and well-run establishment. However, what interests me here is the role that veterinarians are increasingly playing in determining who can breed dogs and who can’t. Instead of allowing breeders to rely on traditional animal husbandry methods to determine when a dog’s teeth need to be cleaned; how to care for dogs with an old, healed injury; and to make decisions about breeding; it seems to have become necessary to consult with veterinarians on virtually every aspect of breeding and raising dogs. For instance, when did it become necessary for a breeder to have pre-breeding vet approval before breeding a dog? How and why should such a provision be part of a state law? Why should veterinarians be breed wardens? And, in what world is tartar on a dog’s teeth a life-threatening condition making someone guilty of animal cruelty?

It seems we should ask the American Veterinary Medical Association about some of these recent changes. Under fire from animal rights groups, the AVMA has moved further and further toward AR positions on many issues. Just recently they have changed the oath that new veterinarians are required to take. The new oath reads as follows:

"Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare, the prevention and relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge."

The changes include the addition of “animal welfare” and the “prevention” of animal suffering. These changes may make veterinarians much more proactive about involving themselves in the activities of their clients and their clients’ animals. According to statements issued by the AVMA, the organization wants to be a “global leader in animal welfare.”

Of course, other recent changes by the AVMA include the release of their AVMA Model Legislation report a few months ago — a report which was, unfortunately, praised and “embraced” by the AKC Board of Directors. This model legislation, which has already been used, in part, in Guildford, NC, to create a severe law against breeders, is certainly not in the best interest of dog breeders or of dogs. It contains many flaws, incorrect assumptions about breeders (both hobby breeders and commercial breeders), and it, again, makes veterinarians into breed wardens by requiring pre-breeding vet approvals for bitches. In addition, it stipulates that dogs should be raised together with other dogs, despite the fact that not all dogs are dog-friendly or do well when raised in a group. If you don’t raise your dogs in this group format, you risk being labeled as practicing animal cruelty by depriving your dogs of proper socialization or companionship.

Once again, I think we have to ask why veterinarians are making these decisions for breeders instead of breeders being allowed to use good animal husbandry skills and relying on their own experience in raising dogs. Should any veterinarian with no particular expertise with dogs have the right to make breeding decisions instead of an experienced breeder? Should veterinarians be determining how dogs are properly socialized when breeders know that this is something that needs to be done on a breed-by-breed, and even a dog-by-dog basis? I would say, definitely not. To put it succinctly, the AVMA needs to butt out of dog breeding and raising dogs. And, I would say that the AKC needs to take a much closer look at the AVMA’s model legislation and rescind their “embrace” of it before it is used further at the local and state level to make more bad laws against breeders. It makes no sense to have a Government Relations Department trying to fight bad laws against breeders when you have the Board of Directors condoning the kind of anti-breeder guidelines put forth by the AVMA.

The AVMA, perhaps sensing an untapped revenue source, is also very concerned with your dogs’ teeth. When I first began writing about dogs years ago, it was standard to suggest to owners that they should have their dogs’ teeth checked when they took their dogs to the veterinarian for their vaccinations. IF the teeth were bad, then you would probably opt for a professional cleaning under anesthesia once in your dog’s life. Several years ago that suggestion became a yearly mandate with a push to give your dogs dental chews and other products endorsed by the American Veterinary Dental College (who knew such a thing even existed?). $$ In the last year or so, the AVMA and the American Veterinary Dental College have been putting out news releases trying to encourage owners to take their dogs to the vet for a dental check-up every six months! $$$ Of course your dog’s teeth are important, but let's be reasonable! That’s more often than most people go to the dentist. How many people are really going to take their dogs to the vet for a dental exam every six months? Yet, if we're not careful, we will soon see six-month dental check-ups written into state laws as something that is necessary to prove you are not being cruel to your dogs.

Not only are the AVMA and its offshoot the American Veterinary Dental College encouraging more visits to the doggy dentist for your dog, but they are not very happy about laymen cleaning a dog’s teeth. If you get your dog’s teeth cleaned at a pet store where your dog is groomed, or by a non-veterinarian, the AVMA is watching. In many states it is perfectly legal for laymen to do teeth cleaning on dogs and other animals and the AVMA is not happy about that fact. Watch for more bills, known as CAVM, or Scope of Practice: Complementary and alternative veterinary medicine (CAVM) and other practice act exemptions in your state legislature. The AVMA has threatened to go to court before to sue laymen for cleaning dogs’ teeth.

And, it’s not just cleaning dog teeth which upsets the AVMA. The AVMA is taking over many traditional animal husbandry procedures in agriculture as well. In Tennessee a woman named Bonnie Cady was sued by the Tennessee Veterinary Medical Association a few years ago because she did artificial insemination and obstetrics work with horses. It was perfectly legal at that time in Tennessee for her to do so, and she was backed by the Tennessee Farm Bureau, which generally rules in all things agricultural. After several years of court proceedings, Ms. Cady won her case. However, the TVMA reached an agreement with Tennessee Farm Bureau, crafted a bill, and had the state legislature pass a law last year which prevents laymen from performing similar work in the future. The bill is so broad that it could even be applied to dog breeders helping each other do an AI breeding if the TVMA wanted to be picky about it. Similar laws are being passed in other states.

I haven't even tried to go into the AVMA's opposition to cropping and docking of dog breeds, a decision they reached without consultation with the AKC — a very animal rights position; or the aggressive push by veterinarians today to spay and neuter every dog they see, regardless of the dog's age, breed, or health. In my opinion, these are irresponsible actions.

While people have been practicing animal husbandry for thousands of years, the first veterinary school only dates to 1761 in France. Veterinarians were not recognized as a profession until 1844. The AVMA was not founded in this country until 1863. My question is, why are proven animal husbandry practices being swept aside by a profession which does not specialize in dogs or dog breeding? Why are dog breeders, the AKC, and state legislatures accepting as gospel the pronouncements of the AVMA when so many of them are self-serving and/or flawed?

I do not intend to attack any individual veterinarians. I have the greatest respect for good vets and I appreciate all that they have done for my animals over the years. However, I do call into question the AVMA as an organization, especially when its goals seem to be in direct conflict with the goals of dog breeders. As long as the AVMA seems to care more about appeasing the animal rights movement and making money than listening to dog breeders, or what is really in the best interests of dogs and other animals, then I think that their motives and actions should be questioned.