OK, Glenn,
You asked for it. <G> This is an article "by an author in whom I have
the utmost confidence".
Dr. Alvin Grossman, the renown AKC all-breed judge and much published
author, must have seen the writing on the wall. In the preface to the
book The Hijacking of the Humane Movement1. published in 1993 he warned
us that the "misbegotten souls of the animal rights movement" were no
longer funny, harmless or simply irritating. He said that "we, the
public, have been cleverly duped by mass media campaigns and the support
of a few misguided stars of the entertainment world." The premise of the
book is that the humane movement, begun in times of true cruelty to
animals when animal baiting and blood sports abounded was simply based
on kind and humane treatment and that the modern day equivalent run by
new age "animal rightists" (many of whom are classed as domestic
terrorists) anthropomorphize animals by insisting that they have equal
"rights". Therefore, "freeing" an animal (only to be killed in traffic)
is seen as an act of righteousness.
The president of the Doris Day Animal League, Ms. Doris Day, and her
advisory board, (who include such entertainment luminaries as Bob Hope
and Martina Navratilova) are proving the truth of Dr. Grossman's words
some eight years after they were written.
The July 3, 2001 decision of the United States District Court For the
District of Columbia written by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in the case
of Doris Day Animal League, et al, Plaintiffs vs. Ann Veneman,
Secretary, Department of Agriculture, et al, Defendants may come as a
surprise to some of the U.S. purebred fanciers, but not to those of us
who have been fearing the confusion between Animal Rightists and Animal
Welfare Organizations for some time. Currently, word of this decision
is racing around the internet dog breeder's lists and U.S. community of
dog fanciers like wildfire.
According to the Doris Day Animal League ("DDAL") the lawsuit was filed
in order to "require commercial retail dealers who sell dogs and cats
from their own premises to be licensed and meet minimum standards for
humane care and treatment". It is DDAL's contention that "{m}any of
these dealers, commonly called 'puppy mill breeders,' breed and raise
these animals in deplorable conditions". So, DDAL sued the United
States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") contending that current
regulation by the USDA was in violation of the Animal Welfare Act. On
the surface, this all sounds reasonable (as do many other statements by
the Animal Rightist organizations who are extremely careful to hide
their actual agendas from their well meaning benefactors). In fact, if
one reads the court's opinion, the DDAL did not oppose just puppy mills
but rather insisted that anyone who breeds cats and dogs should be
licensed as a "dealer". It is common for the Animal Rightist
organizations to abhor breeding of any kind; however they are careful to
skirt actually saying that. One wonders if the true agenda in filing
some of these lawsuits is not, in fact, to slowly eliminate classes of
breeders in a cleverly crafted campaign? No sane animal lover could
begrudge aid and comfort to puppymill animals, but this lawsuit does not
discriminate between the puppymill and the reputable breeder.
Prior to this new opinion by the courts, the USDA, for purposes of
reasonableness, had regulated and licensed the obvious "dealers" such as
commercial breeders and had concentrated efforts to regulate and license
in the commercial environment. As it was, the USDA was barely able to
keep up with the more egregious violators; the outright puppymills.
Now, one wonders how the opinion of this court can be rationally
applied?
The court speaks to prior USDA interpretation of the Animal Welfare Act
("AWA") and current policy in this statement:
"Therefore, contrary to the AWA's plain meaning, the USDA's regulations
place persons who sell dogs and cats from their home for use as pets
into the first exemption, thereby relieving them from the licensing
requirements that apply to "dealers""2.
Formerly, the USDA had made an important distinction between the hobby
breeder and the commercial kennel in order to triage inspection,
regulation and enforcement in areas in which it was truly a real
concern. This new decision is very narrowly drawn and depends upon
forcing the USDA to comply with the AWA as literally written instead of
the more common sense approach it had taken to date.
Under this new decision, all of us who breed purebred dogs are now
"dealers" and subject to licensing, inspection and regulation unless
this decision is reversed on appeal. One might ask why this is such a
bad thing; after all aren't there purebred breeders who push the
limits? Perhaps. But the purebred hobby breeders in the U.S. are
speculating about the changes that may take place such as the following:
� Dogs may not be allowed to live together in home environments for
protection against "transmission of disease" and breeders who keep dogs
in their home may be forced to consider kennels.
� USDA inspectors will be free to visit homes at will and inspect while
possibly carrying diseases from commercial breeding establishments.
� Specific identification of each animal by tag and tattoo/microchip is
required and record keeping is burdensome beyond what reputable hobby
breeders practice.
� Dogs must be separately housed in a primary mathematically correct
enclosures.
� Vaccination protocols are no longer at all discretionary but mandated.
Again, the regulations are wonderful strides from the cruelty of
treatment from which some puppy mill animals suffer, but they are hardly
a useful guide for the hobby breeder who is likely to more than exceed
them. In fact the small breeder will be forced to conform with
standards less acceptable for care of their animals then they already do
provide.
Hobby breeders and exhibitors are hoping that the decision will be
reversed on appeal or amended by legislation because the prospect of
compliance for the small hobby breeder is more than daunting. An eighty
five page document can be found at the USDA's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) that describes exactly what compliance will
be necessary if this decision stands. If you are connected to the
internet, you can view this document at the Aphis website.3 (Click on
"publications" and then go to the Animal Welfare Act.)
In other words, the small hobby breeder who may have one or a few
litters per year will be treated in exactly the same manner for all
intents and purposes as if that breeder were a commercial breeding
establishment. For some small hobby breeders this will prove
impossible or unbearable and may cause the extinction of the small hobby
breeder while the large commercial breeders (including puppy mills) will
be able to afford to continue to operate and possibly enriched and
encouraged by an unfulfilled demand. This has been the case under
various other legislation enacted under the guise of protecting the
animals (or the public) here in the U.S. Profitable enterprise
continues to flourish while the reputable (and rarely profitable)
breeder sinks deeper into the mire. The small breeders are, in many
cases, the breeders who breed for the advancement of the breed; for
health, type, and to preserve the breed standard. They are the ones who
fill dog shows with their hopeful exhibits and who are the cornerstone
of the dog fancy.
We teetered on the slippery slope back when Dr. Grossman was making his
observations and Rod and Patti Strand wrote the highly informative The
Hijacking of the Humane Movement. These days you can still find Patti
Strand fighting the good fight at The National Animal Interest Alliance
(NAIA Trust) which also has a website full of information on this
topic. In fact, it is the only place that this recent decision is
published in full and can be accessed.4.
While I believe it is very possible for right thinking people to
disagree on Animal Rightist views versus Animal Welfare, especially in
isolated issues, I think that this disagreement is partly based on the
historically disingenuous presentation of those issues by Animal
Rightists and the highly candid opinions of those in conservation and
Animal Welfare. I hope to convince you of that in future. Otherwise,
if you plan to visit the U.S. sometime in the future and see a dog show
there may not be many dogs in attendance.
1. Strand, Rod and Patti, Doral Publishing, INC., Wilsonville, Oregon
97070, 1993
2. Doris Day Animal League v. Ann Veneman, Secretary, USDCDC, C.A. No.
00-1057(CKK)
3. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/
4. (http://naiaonline.org/index.htm)
As this has already been printed, permission to reprint or repost is
granted.
Suze
Glenn Fulton wrote:
>
> Could someone enlighten me exactly what the Doris Day Animal League position
> is and why the Cavalier Club is supporting it. I checked out the Doris Day
> Animal League web site and it appears they are against puppy mills and, of
> course, as Martha Stewart would say, "that is a good thing." But then i get
> this petition in the Cavalier Bullentin: Write to USDA Secretary Ann Veneman
> and encourage the agency to enact final regulations that require breeders who
> sell cats and dogs to the public directly from their homes to provide their
> animals with the minimum protection under the Animal Welfare Act.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Glenn Fulton
> Cincinnati/Mason
> permission to forward granted
>
> =========================================================
> "Magic Commands":
> to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email:
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL
> to start it up gain click here:
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL
>
> E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance.
> Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html
>
> All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 2002 by its original author.
--
Suze at Llawen Cavaliers
"...I have seen that in any great undertaking it is not enough for a man
to depend simply upon himself." -Isna Ia-wica
"Thought comes before speech" Luther Standing Bear
=========================================================
"Magic Commands":
to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL
to start it up gain click here:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL
E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance.
Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html
All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 2002 by its original author.
