A Quick Look at the AVMA's "Model Law"

The following article originally appeared in GILBERTS' K-9 SEMINARS NEWS & REVIEW, and it is reprinted here by permission.

A Quick Look at the AVMA's "Model Law"

By Laurie Telfair

It is too late to hope that the American Veterinary Medical Association will confine its expertise to health care and stay out of law-making. Their Model Bill and Regulations to Assure Appropriate Care for Dogs Intended for Use as Pets has already hit the internet and will likely be coming to a state or city governing body near you.*

As an aspirational document designed to educate operators of large commercial puppy raising facilities, it isn’t all bad. It combines engineering standards for sizing enclosures, whelping areas and exercise areas and performance standards for describing the care that should be given. However, this model law would not apply to USDA-licensed persons or facilities and would attach an official, stigmatizing label of “high volume dog breeder” to those hobby breeders who breed six or more litters per year, regardless of how many puppies are whelped or sold.

I would quibble with some of the requirements and question others. For example, it mandates “dogs shall be provided with full-body physical contact with other compatible dogs daily, except as necessary for reasons such as veterinary treatment…” Dog aggressive dogs can be kept separated but “separation of dogs due to aggression should be accompanied by a program to resolve the underlying causes of this disorder.” Many breeds, including mine, German Shepherds, are not expected to play nice with others and most people don’t make a practice of keeping them in groups. This varies by individual dogs of course, but I would not consider a dog that doesn’t get along with other dogs to be suffering from a disorder. There seems to be an implication here that we all should aspire to produce dogs with a generic, “dumbed down” temperament.

The veterinarian authors of this model law reveal a certain amount of self-interest. Family farmers, the most prominent other group with small scale animal care operations, have the right to carry out “accepted animal husbandry practices” without any veterinary involvement. Licensed breeders, however, will be required to perform all of their routine preventive care as part of a veterinarian-client-patient relationship. The model law also requires that “veterinary care” must be provided as part of a veterinarian-client-patient relationship. This seems like a harmless no-brainer until you consider that the laws of some states include artificial insemination and some other breeding-related activities under their definition of veterinary practice.

The model law also states that a dog can only be bred if a veterinarian determines the dog to be fit for breeding purposes. Valid justifications to classify a dog as unfit “may include concerns about physical and/or behavioral health, the perpetuation of genetic defects, and frequency.” It seems to me that the usage of the word “may” here means that additional, unspecified justification may also be allowed. It should be noted that some veterinarians consider achondroplastic legs, brachycephalic head conformation, C section requirement, and any number of the physical traits that distinguish one breed from another to be “genetic defects.” This combined with what appears to be a poor understanding of the salient temperament differences among breeds, makes me very uncomfortable with a law that makes veterinarians into de facto breed wardens.

I have questions on the scope of the proposal. High volume breeder is defined as any person who whelps more than six litters a year, and high volume retailer is defined as any person who transfers ownership of more than 50 dogs a year. A “person” is defined as any individual, corporation, company, partnership, shelter, pound, rescue, firm, estate, trust or other legal entity. The law states that this would include “partnerships,” but what about co-breeders and co-owners? Small breeders who co-own with other breeders could easily exceed the six litters. A hobby breeder with planned litters that all happened to come about in close proximity could hit the limit one year. What happens the next year, when there are few or no litters born? Is a kennel license still required? Rescues and shelters could easily fall into the definition of high volume retailer. Lawmakers enacting this model law would certainly exempt publicly funded animal shelters and could alter the definition to exempt rescues and nonprofit human societies, as well, but there is no certainty that this would be done. Adding licensing fees and requirements could easily sink many of these operations.

Of course, from the standpoint of a state or municipality, the prospect of revenue is a powerful lure. All these purported thousands of so-called “puppy mills” will have to pay, thereby funding the entire cost of the program and maybe even providing additional revenue. We all know how that will end but, like Charlie Brown ever hopeful that this time Lucy will hold the football for him to kick, law makers seem to fall for this one every time.

I think my primary objection is triggered right in the title “Care for Dogs Intended for Use as Pets.” It is one of the consequences of the animal rights movement that hobby breeders are quitting in droves, tired of fending off the increasing restrictions on breeding animals. As we age out, the changed social attitudes toward breeding dogs has decreased the numbers of newcomers into our sport. In the future, more and more of our pet dogs will probably be born and raised in commercial facilities.

The hobby breeder, who knew the grandmother and great-grandmother of the puppies born in her family room or back bedroom, will no longer be the main supplier of pets. This breeder didn’t need to develop a written protocol to ensure that the social needs of her puppies were met. This is what breeders did by instinct and experience. Snaring hobby breeders into a model suited for institutions will hasten the end of the family raised puppies and accelerate the move to commercially produced family pets.

If a group really wanted to improve the health and welfare of family dogs, they would figure out a way to support, or at least not punish, the hobby breeder.

* The complete text of the model law can be read here: http://tinyurl.com/25pp96x [http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/Care_for_Dogs_Model_Act_and_Regulations.pdf ].

Remember, if this gets passed in your state or town, the threshold could be lower. Are you meeting all of these requirements? Imagine living with your dogs in this manner, including carrying out all of the necessary daily documentation.

Courtesy of Ed & Pat Gilberts’ K-9 Seminars. Copyright 2010. Web site: www.gilbertk9.com To subscribe to free News & Review send E-mail to: Gilbertk9@sbcglobal.net