Mind Your Manners, Please

FYI, I post 99 percent of the comments that come in about articles on this site. I have no problem posting opposing opinions, as you can see from the comments following some of the articles. However, I do not post comments that are abusive or which are nothing more than rants. If you intend to post here, be polite.

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 (AKC Opposition to H.R. 835/S. 707 the PUPS Act (PDF) January 2012) 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. Talking points from Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA):

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.

The AVMA and Responsible Pet Ownership

This article originally appeared in the January 20, 2012 issue of Dog News. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

The AVMA and Responsible Pet Ownership

Carlotta Cooper

If you follow pet news online then you may have read that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has made yet another policy change recently. Instead of abiding by the friendly and relatively simple “Golden Rules of Pet Ownership” put forth by the California Veterinary Medical Association, as they have done for some time, the AVMA Executive Board approved their own set of guidelines on responsible pet ownership at their November 10-12 meeting. The new guidelines are far less owner and pet-friendly and far more financially advantageous to veterinarians. Some critics have even claimed that the new rules are animal rights-oriented due to the fact that, if adopted as legal standards, they will make it harder for people to own pets.

Here’s a look at the new AVMA Responsible Pet Ownership guidelines with some commentary:

Guidelines for Responsible Pet Ownership

Owning a pet is a privilege and should result in a mutually beneficial relationship. However, the benefits of pet ownership come with obligations.

You often hear the AR crowd tout the belief that owning a pet is a “privilege” rather than a right and that not everyone is fit to own a cat or dog. I think with just a few exceptions for people who have shown they cannot care for animals properly, everyone deserves to have a pet if they want one. It should not be up to the AVMA or other organizations to decide if someone can own a pet. This is one of the big problems people have with rescue groups who often turn away very good applicants who want to adopt a pet. How many times have good owners been turned down for adoption by rescue groups because they have an intact dog at home? Or they are not allowed to adopt a dog because they don’t have a fenced yard, even though they are willing to walk a dog several times per day. Or for some other spurious reason.

Responsible pet ownership includes:

* Committing to the relationship for the life of the pet(s).

Right at the start there is a problem with the guidelines. We would all like to think that when we get a pet it will be for the life of the pet, but sometimes things happen in life. People lose jobs; they get divorced; there can be a death in the family; you may lose your home. There are all kinds of reasons why you may not be able to keep your pet for his or her entire life. Sometimes the best thing you can do for your pet is to find it a new home. Isn’t that why we have rescue? Sometimes the “responsible” thing to do for your dog is to give him a new life with someone else.

* Avoiding impulsive decisions about obtaining pet(s), and carefully selecting pet(s) suited to your home and lifestyle.

* Recognizing that ownership of pet(s) requires an investment of time and money.

I doubt anyone would quibble about these guidelines, though wouldn’t they make more sense coming from a recognized pet organization such as AKC? As a matter of fact, AKC has an excellent 101 point public education document called “Be A Responsible Dog Owner.” It covers everything from choosing the correct breed to potty training and dog-proofing your home to training your dog and preparing for disasters. This is the kind of information that should come from AKC, and from other pet organizations. However, I question why the AVMA is dispensing this kind of advice. To me, at any rate, it seems to be outside their area of expertise. I greatly respect veterinarians. When I have a sick dog I quickly call the vet. When I have a question about choosing a dog or dog training, however, I don’t think AVMA is the organization to advise me.

* Keeping only the type and number of pets for which an appropriate and safe environment can be provided, including adequate and appropriate food, water, shelter, health care and companionship.

We start to run into problems again here. Who is going to determine what is an appropriate and safe environment? Who will determine what is adequate and appropriate food, water, shelter, health care and companionship? Disagreements rage among pet owners about how to keep and raise dogs. People get into fights about how to best feed their dogs. Raw? Homecooking? Kibble? Grain-free? People argue all the time about which vaccinations, how many, and how often they should give them to their dogs. This seemingly simple statement is a landmine for dog owners. And how many pets are the right number? We’ve already seen the kind of numbers games that ARs and HSUS play in each state, labeling people as commercial breeders if they have X number of dogs. Will the AVMA now start suggesting rules to our lawmakers about how we should keep and raise dogs, what we should feed them, and how many dogs we should keep? Oh, wait! They’ve already done that! The AVMA model bill in 2010 served as the precursor to the PUPS bill promoted by HSUS that is now in Congress. Many of the requirements in the AVMA model bill are in PUPS.

* Ensuring pets are properly identified (i.e., tags, microchips, or tattoos) and that registration information in associated databases is kept up-to-date.

Yes, well. Some people don’t like the idea of having their dog’s data in databases, for obvious reasons. Collecting data about your dog may or may not be well-intentioned and in the current climate it would be very easy for the information to be misused.

* Adherence to local ordinances, including licensing and leash requirements.

Most of us can agree with this guideline, as long as we don’t live in a community where BSL or MSN is the law. But the AVMA makes no mention of these exceptions.

* Controlling pet(s)' reproduction through managed breeding, containment, or spay/neuter, thereby helping to address animal control and overpopulation problems.

It’s great that the AVMA acknowledges managed breeding as an option for pet owners, and that it lists it prominently as an option. Too bad they don’t go into more detail about “overpopulation” and mention that at least 75 percent of dogs in this country are already spayed or neutered; and over 88 percent of the owned cats are already spayed or neutered. I think you have to start wondering just how many cats and dogs people want to have spayed and neutered. If we don’t stop altering animals we aren’t going to have any left for procreation. Isn’t it time to acknowledge that we’ve reached the point where the pet population is largely under control, except for a few areas? Rescues are already importing dogs from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Taiwan, and eastern Europe to sell at shelters now. Enough with the spay/neuter campaign. Of course, that would be bad for vets from a financial viewpoint. Spays and neuters are easy money.

* Establishing and maintaining a veterinarian-client-patient relationship.

Here’s a guideline that I know about personally (along with my vet friend here in Tennessee). We had to navigate through the ends and outs of the “veterinarian-client-patient relationship” a couple of years ago when the TVMA made changes to it in the legislature. It sounds great to tell people to establish and maintain a vet-client-patient relationship. What you need to know is that in many states your vet has to see your dog in person at least once a year for this relationship to exist. Just talking to the vet or the vet tech over the phone when you need something, or running by the office to pick up some heartworm meds isn’t good enough. It doesn’t matter if you have seen the same vet for 10 years, if your state VMA says your vet needs to see your pet in person every 12 months for an annual check-up, then that’s the way it is. The AVMA doesn’t go into detail about the vet-client-patient relationship and how often they need to see your pet on their web site, but they are fully aware of what their state veterinary medical associations require. This guideline means you will have to see your vet at least once a year, whether your dog is ill or not, if you live in one of the states that requires that personal visit each year. And that is how things are trending. Again, this guideline is in the financial best interest of vets.*

* Providing preventive (e.g., vaccinations, parasite control) and therapeutic health care for the life of pet(s) in consultation with, and as recommended by, its veterinarian.*

I think this is the guideline that really upset my vet friend (who happens to be my best friend — I really do admire vets, so please don’t think I am anti-veterinarian; I just have a problem with what the AVMA is doing). It doesn’t take a genius to keep fleas off a dog, but that is what is suggested in this guideline by telling pet owners to provide parasite control in consultation with a veterinarian. Many pet owners, and especially breeders, also provide their own vaccinations, do their own worming, and give heartworm preventive. Most of us are quick to seek out a vet when therapeutic care is needed, but the fact that pet owners are told to do everything in consultation with, and as recommended by, a veterinarian is a little insulting for many of us. It was my vet friend who ascribed this, and many other things in these guidelines, to a desire for the AVMA to seek more money for veterinarians.

* Socialization and appropriate training for pet(s), which facilitates their well-being and the well-being of other animals and people.

Seriously? The AVMA is telling us to socialize our pets? Is this really part of their job description? I can think of countless organizations I would listen to about socialization and training before I would ask the average vet. I have witnessed some atrocious behavior around dogs when I have taken my dogs to the vet’s office. I would never ask a typical vet for advice about training or socialization. (No offense to any vets reading this. You are not the typical vet.)

* Preventing pet(s) from negatively impacting other people, animals and the environment, including proper waste disposal, noise control, and not allowing pet(s) to stray or become feral.

Thanks for that advice. I will try not to allow my dogs to become feral.

* Providing exercise and mental stimulation appropriate to the pet(s)' age, breed, and health status.

Again, the AVMA nosed into this area in their model bill, urging breeders to offer “enrichment” for their dogs. I was immensely puzzled when I first read that term. I don’t do well with euphemisms or doublespeak. I think most of us who play with our dogs and enjoy them as pets should be fine in this regard. But, again, why is the AVMA inserting itself into this area?

* Advance preparation to ensure the pet(s)' well-being in the case of an emergency or disaster, including assembling an evacuation kit.

* Making alternative arrangements if caring for the pet is no longer possible.

Thank you, AVMA, because we wouldn’t be able to figure that our for ourselves.

* Recognizing declines in the pet(s)' quality of life and making decisions in consultation with a veterinarian regarding appropriate end-of-life care (e.g., palliative care, hospice, euthanasia).

Why do I need to make these decisions in consultation with a veterinarian? If my dog is comfortable at home, I may not see any need to take him to a vet. Does that make me a bad pet owner if I don’t want him to be poked and prodded? Don’t tell me what is best for me and my dog, especially at such a personal time. Butt out. Oh, but this is yet another way that the AVMA believes that vets can profit from your dog.

And there you have it. These are the guidelines that the AVMA wants to impose on you. Many people like them, if you can believe that. But many people haven’t looked at them very closely or considered how they may be affected by them in the future. Consider, for a moment, if these guidelines were to become law in your state. That’s not so far-fetched. The AVMA is a respected organization, because of their veterinary reputation. But these are, by-and-large, not veterinary issues. These are pet ownership issues and this is an area where they should not be giving advice. If these guidelines were to be adopted they could spell trouble for dog owners and breeders. The AVMA may consider these guidelines to be the goals that people should aim for. However, if they were enacted into law at the local, state, or federal level, they would then become the standard level of care that would be required for all pets, and that’s something that would be hard for most people to achieve. Which brings us to the animal rights nature of this document. These guidelines represent something of an impossible ideal, if taken literally, which means that fewer people would be able to own and enjoy animals. And isn’t that what the animal rights movement wants? There seems to be a growing link between the AVMA and animal rights goals which you can see outlined on this site. The AVMA supports many AR-oriented policies, including PUPS.

You may think that if fewer people own pets then the AVMA would only be hurting its own member veterinarians but the cost of care would only rise for those who have pets. Consider how much more veterinary care costs today than it did just 10 years ago. It’s getting harder and harder for many people to afford veterinary care for their pets. Vets wonder why they are seeing a decline in patients, but it’s probably because of rising costs, and because it’s becoming harder to own pets.

So, you can draw your own conclusions about these guidelines and the AVMA but don’t be too quick to like them. If they become widely accepted they may make it much harder for you to keep and own pets in the future.

*Since this article was published a couple of weeks ago, the AVMA has published new guidelines for your dog's dental care. They now recommend the following:

Annual examinations and dental cleanings with your veterinarian should begin at one year of age for small-breed dogs, and two years for large-breed dogs. Done under anesthesia, cleaning includes X-rays to assess the health of all teeth and bones of your dog's mouth, inspecting each tooth and the gum around it for signs of disease and flushing the mouth with a solution to kill bacteria. During these visits, your veterinarian should determine the best follow-up and home dental care program for your dog.

Needless to say, this is better dental care than most humans receive. I also think most dog owners and breeders would agree that it's shockingly excessive and more than any dog requires. Most people cannot afford to spend several hundred dollars annually on this kind of preventive care for their dog's teeth. Regular brushing is enough to keep the teeth of most dogs in good shape, with a professional cleaning as needed during the dog's lifetime. Many owners consider the risks of anesthesia to outweigh the benefits of a professional cleaning unless there is a serious problem.

The dangerous part of guidelines like this one from the AVMA is that it can become accepted as a necessary part of basic dog care. Owners who do not follow this guideline could become labeled as neglectful. Dog owners and breeders have already faced charges of cruelty in some places because their dogs had tartar build-up on their teeth. Such reasons should never be the basis of cruelty charges. Guidelines such as this one from the AVMA are more about building revenue for vets than improving care for dogs.