Trouble In Nashville

It had to happen. With animal rights groups spending the last few months crying “Hoarder!” every time someone had a problem with animal control, and Animal Planet exploiting (or perhaps staging) people in their series about hoarding, it was only a matter of time before some not very bright people decided their town needed to pass a law to restrict the number of animals people could own in order to “prevent animal hoarding.” Who knew that unfortunate town would be Nashville, TN?

According to WSMV-TV, a proposal by Nashville Animal Control and the city Health Department would limit the number of pets a resident can own in an effort to prevent hoarding cases. Insiders say that a number of rescue groups unofficially banded together and have been attending meetings with these organizations for the last few months so it’s a good bet that this idea came from them.

WSMV reports that residents would be limited to the following:

The proposal would limit the number of cats and dogs a person can have based on the size of a resident’s property.

* There could be no more than five cats or dogs on an acre of land, according to the proposal.

* There could be no more than 10 cats and dogs on 1.5 to 2.5 acres of land.

* No more than 20 dogs and cats would be allowed to live on five acres.

* Land more than 5 acres would be allowed to have up to 21 dogs and cats.

“Vets, kennels, boarding facilities and licensed pet breeders and dealers would be exempt from the proposed ordinance.

“Metro officials said Animal Control officers would have discretion and could give an exemption to animal owners who have well-cared, vaccinated animals.”

(Gee, that’s not very fair for the large majority of the population, is it? Somebody has a buddy who's with Animal Control so he can give an exemption to his friends?)

Now let’s think about some of the things that are so obviously WRONG with this idea. First of all, what do you do if you live in an apartment or condo? I guess you just can’t own a pet.

Secondly, what happens if you move to a smaller piece of property? Are you just supposed to dump your pets? Get rid of them? You can’t have all of your beloved animals anymore because you moved from a place that was 1.1 acres to a place that was .9 acres?

Obviously, someone who has five chihuahuas is not using their land in the same way as someone who has five Newfoundland dogs. How is any of this ordinance fair to a pet owner?

And cats often don’t even live outside! Many cat owners keep their pets indoors so the size of their owner’s acreage is irrelevant.

Besides all of these points, nothing in this plan would “prevent” hoarding. There are already very good laws against animal abuse and neglect. The number of animals a person has is really no one’s business as long as those animals are cared for properly. There are plenty of people who keep large numbers of animals and do a superb job. And there are some people with just one pet who are bad pet owners. Numbers have absolutely NOTHING to do with how well animals are treated.

This is a misguided and, yes, ignorant attempt to prevent a problem that is, in fact, very rare. Real animal hoarders make up just a tiny fraction of a percent of the population. They barely register on the radar. It’s a shame that animal rights groups and television series trying to grab ratings have exploited them and sensationalized them to the point that people now imagine them to exist in every neighborhood.

If you doubt what I’m saying, check out Steve Dale’s blog on this subject. He sends a plea to Nashville not to follow through on this horrible idea.

Nashville Suggesting Pet Limit Laws Based on Size of the Yard

According to printed reports, around Nashville - in Davidson County,

pet owners will have to do a head count.

Other communities have set "pet limit laws" with totally random

numbers, 3 dogs and 4 cats, or whatever it is. Police don't go door

to door counting pets, this is complaint driven...complaints about

barking or inhumane conditions. My point is that there are already

laws and ordinances about disturbing the peace or treating animals

(or people) living in poor conditions.

Community members in Davidson County have apparently suggested Metro

Animal Control to set a limit on the number of dogs and/or cats a

person can have depending how big their yard is. This is NOT in any

pets' best interest and makes no sense. The animals shouldn't be in

the yard all day in the first place, and therefore yard space is

irrelevant. What about people with no yards (condo owners or renters

in apartments), are they to have no pets?

Dale also brings out the point that pet limits prevent many people from fostering pets and helping with rescue — something which you would think that the rescue groups which may be behind this idea for an ordinance would realize. If people can't foster pets and help with rescue, more pets die in shelters.

There’s one more interesting thing about this push for a new “anti-hoarding” law in Nashville. Seems it may have been prompted by a) neighbors with a grudge; and b) people who have a problem with bully breed dogs.

From the August 8, 2010 Jenny Upchurch Action Line column in The Tennessean:

Metro Considers Pet Limit

QUESTION: A neighboring property owner and the Highland Heights Neighborhood Association are frustrated by a Meridian Avenue property where the resident keeps several pit bull dogs.

Neighbors say they hear dogs barking, sometimes all night long. Waste from the kennels sometimes flows into yards when they are hosed out. And there is frequently a bad smell.

Neighbors ask why the problems aren't being addressed.

ANSWER: Metro's Animal Care and Control has visited the home on more than a half dozen occasions, the latest last Tuesday. There have been as many as 12 dogs there, says Billy Biggs, head of the animal control officers. There were five on the most recent visit.

But the owner is not violating any ordinances, because all the dogs have the required shots and licenses, Biggs said.

Metro Codes also has inspected the property and reinspected it Friday. The inspector and her supervisor determined that the dogs are pets and well cared for and that it is not a business.

Upchurch goes on to write that Nashville’s current ordinance doesn’t limit the number of animals a resident can keep...but the Metro Health Department is drafting changes in their ordinance. Doesn’t that strike you as a little suspicious? There is nothing at all wrong with the way these dogs are being kept but the ordinance needs to be re-written? Kind of makes you wonder if the neighbors would be complaining if there were five Poodles living next door, doesn't it? Or if the ordinance would need to be re-written if the neighbors had five Lhasa Apsos.

Upchurch confidently writes:

"The board of health probably will get the proposal and vote on it early in 2011. It will require Metro Council approval."

We’ll see. A local television station in Nashville conducted a poll recently asking if the number of pets a resident can own should be limited. 1162 people voted. 73 percent (854 votes) said No, the number of pets a resident can own should not be limited. Only 25 percent (287 votes) said that the number should be limited. 2 percent (21 votes) said “I don’t know.”

For the sake of all pet owners in Nashville I certainly hope they will get rid of this idea of limiting the number of pets that residents can own.

Negative Consequences of PUPS

Negative Consequences of PUPS

Carlotta Cooper

Recently I was reading Steve Dale’s excellent online article “Why Are Puppy Mills Allowed To Operate?” at PetWorld. The article isn’t quite what it sounds like. The article is actually about the new PUPS legislation and why it may not be a good idea.

Steve explains that we all know there are some problems with bad breeders. That’s not new information. He discusses the report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) which found problems with the way that inspections of some commercial breeders were being carried out: repeat violations ignored, penalties waived, inadequate documentation, first-time violators given a pass sometimes; and in some states a lack of inspectors.

The report goes on to recommend that APHIS, which carries out the inspections for the USDA, be able to immediately confiscate animals that are dying or seriously suffering, and to better train their inspectors to document, report and penalize wrongdoing.

That seems to be an appropriate response to the findings in the report. But, as Steve Dale reports, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-ILL) and others have introduced legislation called PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act) which they say would close a “loophole” which allows breeders to operate online.

As Steve Dale writes in his article, there are a number of problems with the PUPS bill. PUPS would “make life tough for responsible breeders.” These are people who generally operate from their homes. If you drive these breeders away then the prices of purebred dogs rise and some breeds could disappear. In fact, show breeders could be included among these people who breed from their homes.

Instead, Steve and many other people advocate enforcing the laws that we already have for commercial breeders instead of creating new laws. In fact, there are approximately 100 inspectors for about 5000 commercial breeders and the PUPS bill does not suggest any new funding or inspectors for APHIS. If many more home and hobby breeders would be inspected under this bill it’s hard to imagine how the inspectors would be able to do a good job with their inspections if they are stretched thin now.

Although the stated purpose of the bill is to close the so-called “Internet loophole” that allows the sale of dogs over the Internet, I’ve been very concerned about the “ownership interest” provision in the bill.

The bill defines a High Volume Retail Breeder as follows:

•S 3424

‘‘(B) HIGH VOLUME RETAIL BREEDER.

— The term ‘high volume retail breeder’ means a

person who, in commerce, for compensation or

profit—

‘‘(i) has an ownership interest in or

custody of 1 or more breeding female dogs;

and

‘‘(ii) sells or offers for sale, via any

means of conveyance (including the Inter-

net, telephone, or newspaper), more than

50 of the offspring of such breeding female

dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period.

(And in the bill a four-month-old female puppy is designated as a breeding female.)

Consider what this definition means to a show breeder who co-owns bitches with other people. You may have one or two bitches yourself. You may or may not have a litter. It doesn’t matter. If your friends who co-own bitches with you have litters, no matter where they live in the United States, and they sell those puppies, then those puppies will be counted toward a fifty puppy total for you because you have an “ownership interest” in the dams.

If your co-owners sell a total of fifty or more puppies then you would be considered a high volume retail breeder. This means that you would have to become USDA-licensed and inspected under the PUPS act. If you keep dogs in your home (and I’m sure all of us do), your home would have to be inspected by USDA-APHIS inspectors. I’m also sure that you would not pass inspection. Not because you don’t have a lovely home, but because it does not meet Animal Welfare Act guidelines: you cannot hose down the floor and walls of your home; the surfaces of your home are not impervious to moisture; you cannot disinfect your home at high temperatures; and so on.

What this means is that you could not keep and raise dogs in your home if you had to be USDA-licensed under the PUPS act.

That is why PUPS is harmful to people who breed and raise dogs in their home.

For decades we have been co-owning dogs with each other in order to protect them and supervise their breeding. Now co-ownership can mean that we would be labeled high volume retail breeders and have to be USDA-licensed. It could mean that we would not be able to breed and raise dogs in our homes.

I don’t have statistics on how many breeders co-own bitches. Only the AKC could provide that kind of data. However, I think it’s estimated that the Fancy makes up about 20 percent of the core constituency for the AKC and perhaps 20 percent of their registrations. I think it would be reasonable to guess that a large number of that core constituency engages in co-ownership. (Three of my four adult dogs are co-owned and I co-own several dogs that I’ve sold to others.) No, they wouldn’t all be at risk of becoming high volume retail breeders but many certainly would be.

When replying to comments following Steve Dale’s article one person suggested several times that those of us who are show breeders should be willing to give up our hobby and reduce our breeding for the sake of passing PUPS. I don’t think he ever quite grasped the concept of “hobby” as opposed to breeding as a business.

I think what many people fail to realize is that those of us who breed dogs for show and as a hobby are the very people who are producing dogs of the highest quality in this country. It’s all very well to say that we should be willing to breed less, embrace PUPS, get rid of those awful bad kennel operators. But every time Congress tries to pass a law to get rid of bad breeders they include provisions that would hurt show and hobby breeders — the people who are breeding quality dogs, donating to canine health research, keeping breeds alive. If show and hobby breeders are driven out of breeding or forced to cut back, it hurts all purebred dogs in this country. It hurts dog owners and the consumer who wants to buy a dog. If there are fewer show and hobby breeders producing dogs, the quality of dogs in the U.S. will inevitably decline as a result of PUPS.

Instead of creating new laws like PUPS, which will hurt dedicated breeders, the USDA should be encouraged to better enforce the laws that are already on the books. There are simply too many negative consequences to PUPS which are not being considered by the people supporting it.

PUPS Discussion

The Steve Dale blog currently has a good discussion about PUPS if you're looking for more information about the bill. Steve discusses the bill and brings up some of the problems with it. For instance, he talks about things that the OIG report found when they did a review of the USDA inspection process for commercial breeders. Problems were definitely found. However, those issues are already being addressed by the agency.

Of course, what needs to happen at the USDA is better enforcement of existing laws, not the creation of a new law which would add thousands more breeders — hobby and home breeders! — for inspectors to inspect. The inspectors are already stretched thin (approximately 100 inspectors for 5000 commercial breeders). How on earth would they be able to improve their performance if they had to add thousands of new breeders to those they already inspect? It makes no sense whatsoever. PUPS makes no provision for additional funding or inspectors either. It would set the USDA up to fail even more spectacularly.

Check out the Steve Dale blog for a good discussion. Be sure to read the comments. There seems to be an HSUS shill commenting and pushing for the bill.