Why the C-BARQ Pet Store Study is Garbage

Why the C-BARQ Pet Store Study is Garbage

Carlotta Cooper

If you are at all familiar with research then you know that there are good studies and bad studies. It's not unusual for the researchers designing the study to have a bias or, in some cases, even set out to prove their own hypothesis, regardless of the facts. Such is the case with a study that has received lots of attention since it came out in 2013 – “Differences in behavioral characteristics between dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores and those obtained from noncommercial breeders,” by Frank McMillan, DVM, Dipl ACVIM, James Serpell, PhD, Deborah L Duffy, PhD, Elmabrok Masoud, PhD, and Ian R. Dohoo, DVM, PhD, published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Popular headlines after the release of the study proclaimed, Penn Vet study finds pet store puppies come with increased risk; and Pet store dogs have more psychological problems than dogs from breeders. But the truth is, we still don't know if that's true or not. That's because the research for the study was ridiculously biased.

Since most of us, as hobby breeders, presume that well-socialized puppies raised in the home get a better start in life, it's easy to believe that puppies that come from “noncommercial” breeders are better off from a psychological viewpoint than puppies that come from pet stores. Many of these pet store puppies probably come from commercial – professional – breeders. Hobby breeders believe that our puppies are bred with more care; that the parents are more carefully chosen based on health, genetics, and conformation; and we believe that our puppies are better socialized than any puppies that can come from a commercial breeder. We also believe that we are careful when we place our puppies in new homes. These things may be true in many cases. That's not in dispute in this research.

What should be disputed is the research itself which was slanted from the start toward vilifying puppies that come from pet stores and their commercial breeders.

The study looked at 413 dogs obtained from pet stores and contrasted them to 5657 dogs obtained from breeders. The purpose was to compare purebred dogs from different sources – obtained as puppies – at approximately the same age.

The behavioral measurements for the study were obtained by using an online version of the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ). This questionnaire had 100 questions and was developed by James Serpell, one of the researchers on the team. It asked questions based on the owner's observations of their dog's typical responses to a variety of everyday situations. Behavior assessed included trainability, excitability, aspects of sociability, fearfulness, and expressions of aggression.

The researchers concluded that the data showed that dogs purchased from pet stores were not as psychologically sound as dogs from breeders; they showed less desirable behaviors in most categories; and did not achieve better scores than breeder dogs in any category.

The most troubling results were reported in relation to aggressive behavior. Owners of sexually intact pet store dogs were three times more likely to report that their dogs had acted aggressively toward them than similar dogs from breeders. The data showed that pet store dogs were almost twice as likely to show aggression toward strange dogs. The data even showed that pet store dogs were more likely to have problems with aggression directed toward strangers and toward other dogs in the home. And the study went on and on describing behavior problems in pet store dogs. The researchers were blunt in their assessment: "[U]ntil the causes of the unfavorable differences detected in this group of dogs can be specifically identified and remedied, we cannot recommend that puppies be obtained from pet stores."

Right now you're probably nodding your head and thinking, “I knew it. It's those pet store dogs giving all of us a bad name. Something should be done about them. They're not socialized properly. Let's get rid of them.” Well, hold on. As I said, the problem here is the way this study was conducted – not the dogs.

How can I say that? Because I took the survey for this study myself. Once upon a time I saw an Irish Setter puppy in a pet store, felt sorry for her, and bought her. Believe me when I say there was never a dog with better mental health than Molly the Irish Setter. For that matter, there has probably never been a dog with better physical health. She was my dog well into her teen years with never a health problem of any kind. She had no particular behavior problems unless you consider Irish Setter energy and enthusiasm to be behavior problems (some people do). She was one of the smartest dogs I have ever owned.

So, I felt well-qualified to take the C-BARQ survey for people who had owned pet store dogs. That is why I can say, categorically and under oath, that it was hopelessly slanted toward forcing owners to say that their pet store dogs were sickly and had outrageous behavior problems. Has your dog ever growled at another dog in the house over the best place to sleep? Well then, your dog obviously has problems with aggression. This is not very important if your dog comes from a noncommercial breeder – dogs will be dogs -- but if your dog comes from a pet store, time to call a town meeting! Shut down the pet store!

As a hobby breeder myself, I believe that we breed and raise the best puppies anyone could wish for. But I also like to see honest research and this piece of – research – doesn't cut it. HSUS is currently using this study in an effort to try to eliminate pet stores in many cities. Whether you like pet stores or not, it's important for all dog breeders to realize that when cities and counties shut them down or pass ordinances requiring pet stores to sell only shelter pets, it puts hobby dog breeders at risk. To the general public everyone who breeds a dog is pretty much the same. Your city commission has a hard time distinguishing between a commercial breeder and what you, as a hobby breeder, do. If they get rid of pet stores, the next item on their agenda is getting rid of all breeders. That includes you. Try to stay informed about what is happening in your area. Fight efforts to close pet stores.

By the way, if you're really interested in comparing pet store puppies to puppies from other sources, you can check out this much more comprehensive 1994 study:

Scarlett, Janet M., DVM, PhD; John E. Saidla, DVM; Roy V.H. Pollock, DVM, PhD, “Source of acquisition as a risk factor for disease and death in pups,” Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association, 204, No. 12 (1994), 1906-1913.

That study indicates that puppies acquired from pet stores are as healthy as those from any other source. It doesn't suggest any kind of mental or psychological problems for puppies from commercial breeders either. The study determined that the prevalence of serious disease, behavior problems, and congenital problems did not differ significantly regardless of where a puppy comes from. Data were obtained and analyzed for 2,144 pups examined at 65 veterinary hospitals in the northeastern United States to determine whether there were significant differences in the frequency of disease and death among pups acquired from private owners, Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals/pounds, breeders, or pet stores. All health problems reported by owners and veterinarians in the first 2 weeks of ownership were tabulated. The prevalence of serious disease among pups (resulting in death, euthanasia, return, or extensive treatment) was < 4% for all sources and did not differ significantly between pet stores and other sources. Pups from pet stores had more respiratory tract disease, but fewer fleas and parasites of the intestinal tract. Data supplied by the veterinarians indicated that the risk of intestinal tract diseases was significantly (P < or = 0.01) higher among pups from pet stores and Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals/pounds, compared with those from private owners. The prevalence of reported behavioral and congenital problems did not differ among the 4 sources.

The nice thing about this study is that it was not based on an Internet survey and the puppies were examined by veterinary professionals.

The moral of this story is that you should not believe every new study that comes out today, especially if it is being promoted by animal rights groups. Studies are frequently biased, especially if they are about animals. Even if you agree with the results of a study, it's a good idea to ask some questions because the study could very easily be flawed.

Ooo La La! France Changes the Status of Pets

This article originally appeared in Dog News and is published here by permission of the author.

Ooo La La! France Changes the Status of Pets

Carlotta Cooper

I happen to believe that most of the bad ideas that crop up in the United States commence in Europe. For Exhibit A I would like to offer a recent vote in the French parlement. Following a petition that was signed by nearly 700,000 French citizens (which goes to show you that mob rule is still not a good idea), the French MPs voted to change the status of animals from personal property (“movable goods”) to “living and feeling beings.”

The law the French were overthrowing dated from 1804 and was part of the Napoleonic Code. The new legislation was sponsored by French President Francois Hollande's Socialist party. Dogs, cats, horses, and other animals in France will now have new rights and stronger protection according to activists. Oddly enough, the French rejected proposals to ban cockfighting and bullfighting.

The original petition was initiated by 30 Millions d'Amis (translated to “30 Million Friends”). The head of that group, Reha Hutin, applauded the vote, telling Britain's Telegraph that by approving the bill the parlement recognized “an obvious fact: animals are beings endowed by feelings.” “[It was] ridiculous to see pets as pieces of furniture that can walk by themselves,” she adds.

By all accounts, the new legislation will give France's 63 million pets more protection from cruelty. (Apparently cockfighting and bullfighting don't matter when it comes to cruelty.) Britain's Daily Mail quoted philosopher and former education minister Luc Ferry, who called the previous status of animals “absurd.” According to Ferry, “animals suffer, they have emotions and feelings. It is not a question of making animals subjects of the law… but simply of protecting them against certain forms of cruelty.”

The change in the status of pets will also mean other things will change. For instance, couples will be able to fight for shared custody of pets in divorce cases. If a pet is run over by a negligent driver, s/he will be able to sue for compensation for suffering. Inheritance laws will also change to allow owners to leave their estates to their pets

Some of these issues are already in play here in the U.S. and have been working their way through the courts. Couples have already gone to court over the custody of pets – and even of stored semen from stud dogs. Owners have sued for suffering and emotional distress over the loss of a pet with varying outcomes. And here in the U.S., many owners leave large sums to their pets or for their future care after their owners die.

While these issues for pet owners in France may seem benevolent there are other issues that could be much more problematic. Critics point out that changing the status of animals could have detrimental effects on breeding, hunting, fishing, and agriculture. There is concern that animal rights activists could use the law to challenge animal slaughter practices by arguing that it is wrong to kill “beings with feelings” or to eat meat. Wolf culls and culls for other dangerous animals could also be challenged. There is also the issue of using animals for medical research which could be challenged on the same grounds.

Not mentioned by critics but no less worrisome is the fact that once pets are no longer an owner's property, an owner has fewer rights regarding the animal. It is much easier for the government or an outside agency to take your pet from you when your pet is not your property. A “living, feeling being” is much more of a free agent or wildcard than a pet who belongs to you by law.

I think we all would like to see animals treated well and have good animal welfare practiced everywhere in the world. Animals are certainly not furniture. However, the issues that lie ahead in France, now that they have taken this step, may illustrate some of the problems that come when a society changes the status of animals from property to non-property. Just because an animal has feelings doesn't mean it should be autonomous. Or that it needs a lawyer or an activist to speak for it.

Bells Are Ringing! (At Least For Now)

This article originally appeared in Dog News and is published here by permission of the author.

Bells Are Ringing! (At Least For Now)

Carlotta Cooper

Dog breeders in Tennessee are celebrating, at least for the next few months. Tennessee recently became the first and, so far, the only state to get rid of a commercial breeder law. It took five years but the law will be gone after June 2014.

It should be said at the start that the commercial breeder law in Tennessee was never as harsh as the laws passed in some states. The law was passed in 2009 during the first wave of commercial breeder laws. Perhaps HSUS had not fine-tuned their approach yet. We also fought the law hard and had a lot of help from hunters as the 2009 legislative session went on. Most legislators would not oppose the law but they were troubled by it enough that they weakened it considerably. In the end, the Tennessee commercial breeder law had a sunset provision. It would end in June 2014 unless the legislature voted to make it permanent.

As you might expect, most of the owner and breeder groups in the state have been watching and waiting anxiously over the last five years to see how things would go. Early on it became apparent that hardly any dog (or cat) breeders were signing up for state licenses. Informal statements made by the new department set up to license and inspect “commercial” breeders suggested that there was no one to license and inspect as described in the commercial breeder law.

This information was confirmed in a state audit from 2012 which revealed that only 20 breeders had signed up for the program. The commercial breeder law had used figures from the Humane Society of the United States which promised 500 breeders in the state would sign up and that the program would be self-sustaining. Not just self-sustaining, but that the program would be a money-maker for the state in terms of sales tax and revenue from breeder license fees. By the end of 2013, the state reported that the program was nearly a million dollars in debt and it would continue to lose approximately $300,000 per year.

Faced with these obvious signs that the commercial breeder law was a complete failure, the Tennessee legislature killed the bill that would have extended the law and made it permanent. Even last ditch efforts by HSUS to extend the law for just one year failed. Sometimes even legislators can tell something is manure when they step in it.

There were other signs that things would not go well for HSUS and animal rights groups during the 2014 session, but they started last year and earlier. HSUS spent at least $100,000 lobbying against a bill in Tennessee in 2013 that would have required someone to share undercover videos of animal abuse with law enforcement. They spent another $100,000 on a media campaign against the same bill – a media campaign that got very ugly and earned them no friends with the public or in the legislature. Many legislators began to see a rotten, bullying side of HSUS that they usually try to conceal.

One result of HSUS's strong arm tactics last year was that every single animal rights bill in the Tennessee legislature was defeated this year. Not just the commercial breeder extension bill, but an animal abuse registry bill, a tethering bill, and others never made it out of committee. Only one bill made it out of a subcommittee.

It would be nice to think that Tennessee dog owners and breeders could count on these results every year but, unfortunately, we can't. Every year is different and this is an election year. Legislators who understand our issues need support. Some may be defeated. Some may retire. New lawmakers are always being elected and they may not know anything about dog breeders or pet issues. No matter what state you live in, it's important for you to stay in touch with your state representative and senator. Let them know how you feel about animal issues. Lawmakers frequently say that they vote for or against something because they only hear from one side. Let your legislators hear from you so they know that dog owners and breeders care about these issues. The same goes for your U.S. representative and senator.

Tennessee owners and breeders owe special thanks to the Tennessee Federation of Dog Clubs, the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA), and to the AKC for their legislative help this year. Thank you to everyone who made a phone call or sent an e-mail. Now we'll start working on next year's agenda because we know that HSUS will be back with another version of a commercial breeder bill.

Is Your Breed "Vulnerable"?

This article originally appeared in Dog News and is published here by permission of the author.

Is Your Breed “Vulnerable”?

Carlotta Cooper

The Kennel Club in Britain recently released their 2013 registration information, including breed figures. For those of us with breeds with smaller registration numbers, even in the U.S., it's refreshing to see this kind of information. I have a breed (English Setters) that's been hovering around the “vulnerable” mark in Britain – that is, a native British breed with fewer than 300 individuals registered per year. English Setters grew from 312 puppies registered in 2012 to 326 registered in 2013. Pop the champagne! It's certainly too soon to celebrate but just a couple of years ago the breed only registered 234 puppies after a decade of decline. And the English Setter is by no means as bad off as some of the other native breeds. You can see registration numbers for the breeds registered in the UK here, along with their 2012 numbers.

Total Kennel Club registration figures for 2013 were 223,770. That's 5,460 fewer than in 2012 which represents a 2 percent drop, though Kennel Club officials note that the last quarter of the year showed a slight recovery in numbers. The three most popular breeds in Britain remain the same as in 2012, though with slightly reduced numbers: Labrador Retrievers, Cocker Spaniels (English, to us), and the English Springer Spaniel. You should keep in mind that the United Kingdom is a nation of some 63 million people when looking at their numbers – about one-fifth the population of the United States at 313 million people.

Vulnerable breeds, overall, increased their registrations by about 2 percent. However, some vulnerable breeds continue to struggle. Registrations for the Skye Terrier, for example, fell by 59 percent last year with the breed registering only 17 puppies.

Unfortunately, we currently have little idea what the individual breed figures are for our breeds here in the U.S. Per Alan Kalter's recent Chairman's Report, the AKC registered 479,404 dogs in 2013, but I haven't seen an individual breakdown of the breeds. I think we all know that there are plenty of pressures on breeders and buyers today which are responsible for the drop in registrations. We have a heavy push from animal shelters for people to get a mixed breed dog instead of buying a purebred puppy. Animal rights people talk trash about dog breeders and purebred dogs at every opportunity. It's more expensive to breed and show dogs today. New laws make it harder and harder to keep and raise dogs. There is lots of social pressure on dog owners to spay and neuter puppies as soon as possible instead of thinking about breeding a litter at some point. We're living in a different world than the one that existed in 1992 when AKC registered 1.5 million dogs.

Since we are living in a different world today, we need to get rid of the old playbook, especially those of us who have “vulnerable” breeds. We may not have the same kennel club-sanctioned program here in the U.S. that exists in Britain, but there are certainly breeds here which have to be cognizant of the fact that we don't register many dogs each year and we have a small gene pool. That's why it would be so helpful if AKC would once again start posting the breed registration statistics – both the litters and individual dogs registered. If the AKC is now registering one-third of the dogs that they registered in 1992, it means that the individual breed numbers are also down. We need to know what those numbers are so we can take action. There are many people in each breed who won't take these issues seriously until they see how low the numbers in their breed have gotten in the last few years.

Your Flat-Coated Flugelhound may still be ranked 54^th in the registration rankings but that tells you nothing about how many litters are born or how many dogs are registered. Your breed might be on the verge of extinction and you wouldn't know it.

Now, according to the old playbook, we, as “responsible breeders” sold puppies on limited registration or with spay/neuter contracts. We did not breed every puppy in a litter. We didn't have to because there were lots of puppies being produced and we could pick and choose. Even as more and more health and genetic tests became available, we could toss out any dog who had the slightest problem we didn't like. And you know what happened? We now have fewer and fewer dogs being bred and fewer puppies being registered.

I think, when we see those individual breed statistics again, we will find that many breeds are looking at low numbers. If we want to save our breeds, we have to change our thinking and our tactics.

• No more spay/neuter contracts unless a puppy has a serious fault.

• Encourage your puppy buyers to consider breeding their puppy when s/he's an adult. Become a mentor to them.

• Try to use more dogs and bitches in each litter for breeding.

• Don't remove dogs from your breeding program for small problems. Weigh and consider pros and cons of health issues.

• Learn more about genetics and good breeding practices in general.

I'm not saying to produce a lot of mutts or become a puppy farmer. I'm not telling you to lower your standards. And I'm not saying that you shouldn't health test your dogs. What I am saying is that these suggestions can help breeds who have lower numbers. Include more puppy buyers in your future breeding plans and more dogs in the gene pool and it can help increase the number of dogs bred as well as the overall health of the breed. This isn't something that I thought of all by myself. Some of these ideas come from population genetics. It's good to use more dogs and bitches in the gene pool; and it's good to keep individuals in the gene pool if they don't have major problems and you use them sparingly. Most of all, you want to breed more instead of less. If we don't do some of the things recommended here for breeds with low numbers, then at some point in the future it might become necessary to use outcross breeding to try to save various breeds. I don't think that's something that most breeders of purebred dogs look forward to with pleasure.

I think it would be great if AKC would do something to encourage breeders with some of the breeds with low numbers but they would have to identify them first. Maybe they could reduce the price of registering a litter by a few dollars or give a breeder/owner some recognition for persevering with these breeds – it's really not easy finding majors when you have a breed with such low numbers! (Especially if you live in the middle of nowhere, as I do.) We need to keep these breeders and owners involved with their breeds or they will be doomed to extinction.

I know these ideas go against the grain for many breeders. They are contrary to popular thought today that encourages people to spay/neuter every dog and breed very little. But if we want to keep a lot of our breeds around, we need to take actions like these. If you love your breed and you want to make them less vulnerable, keep breeding, despite all the obstacles. Their futures are in our hands and we have to make sure we leave them strong and healthy for the next generation.

Now, if we can just see those breed statistics.

Radical Environmentalism and the Doggy Apocalypse

We recently celebrated Earth Day around the world. I can recall being a very young (note the very) child when the first Earth Day was held in 1970. I believe we did something in school that was radical at the time like gathering up old newspapers at home and bringing them into class to be recycled. Since my father took two newspapers a day and read the Sunday paper, I think I had to bring in newspapers in a wheelbarrow. The first Earth Day was celebrated in some 2000 colleges and universities and by about 10,000 primary and secondary schools, along with many communities. Today Earth Day is celebrated in more than 192 countries each year. According to the Earth Day Network the day is now the largest secular holiday in the world. (I am going somewhere dog-related with this. Be patient.)

Does Earth Day actually do any good for the environment? Well, yes, it probably does since it provides a reminder to people about environmental issues. There's a “but” coming and it has to do with environmentalism and activism and taking things too far. And that's where we finally find dogs.

Thanks to some of the more radical elements that support the environmental cause, we have articles such as “Are pets bad for the environment?” by author Erik Assadourian from The Guardian in Britain. “With the world's resources under increasing pressure, Erik Assadourian argues that pet ownership needs a drastic rethink.” According to Mr. Assadourian, pets are a drain on the world's resources so we should, well, stop having pets. If that's not feasible, the author suggests things such as having smaller pets because they eat less. That's the gentlest of his suggestions.

As our pets increasingly adopt the consumer habits of their owners, it's clear that no matter how 'green' this industry becomes, it will never become sustainable. But even if we severely restrict what pet products can be sold, and even if we stop overfeeding our increasingly overweight pet populations... can pets be part of a sustainable future?

The short, if unpopular, answer is probably not. Two German Shepherds use more resources just for their annual food needs than the average Bangladeshi uses each year in total. And while pet owners may disagree that Bangladeshis have more right to exist than their precious Schnookums, the truth is that pets serve little more societal purpose than keeping us company in an increasingly individualistic and socially isolated consumer society.

Clearly, we are all bad people for having pets. We must be harming the environment and we're keeping those poor Bangladeshis from existing. By all means, yes, let's restrict what pet products can be sold because, well, capitalism and democracy – those economic and political systems which encourage individualism – are obsolete and harmful. Pets are obviously harmful and they serve no important purpose in society. Besides, we live in this horrible individualistic and socially-isolated consumer society – that depends on capitalism and democracy. And they are bad, right? (That was sarcasm, in case you were wondering.)

Maybe this guy has some other agenda? Like maybe he just really doesn't like our current society? Personally, I don't want someone – or a government – telling me what pet products I can buy. And I certainly don't want anyone telling me I cannot own pets. Or that I have to own a small pet instead of the pet of my choice because some environmental extremist in another country (or in this one) believes that pets are using too many resources.

Oh, those pets are such “ravenous consumers.” Those bad bad cats and dogs. The author goes on to predict a dreadful future when climate disrupts grain supplies and the cost of food becomes too high. People will abandon their pets by the millions, apparently leaving us all at the mercy of some doggy apocalypse. At that point, people will be eating pets anyway, so everything will work out just fine. Or perhaps roaming hordes of feral dogs will be eating humans. It's hard to say. (This is why I call this a radical environmental view.)

Not content with this message of doom and gloom, the man goes on to invoke Bob Barker (never a good sign) and suggests “a very steep tax on pets (along with pet products and pet food) and tripling that tax for pets that aren't spayed or neutered (so that only breeders would choose not to fix their pets).” He also suggests that marketing of pets and pet products could be banned and “polluting veterinarian services like chemotherapy” should only be done on service animals. He says if people in poorer countries can't afford advanced treatments, then pets shouldn't have them either.

At this point I believe I stopped reading before my head exploded.

I could write a lengthy description of all the things dogs do to help humans and justify their presence in society, but why bother? If they do nothing else at all, dogs are good pets and they have been with humans for at least 15,000-33,000 years (probably longer). I love my dogs not because they can hunt or scare away someone who comes to the door uninvited, or for any of the other historic reasons people keep dogs. I love them because they are good companions. I will probably go on loving them in the event of a zombie apocalypse -- human or canine.

Whatever your views about global warming or global cooling or kill-shots from the sun or any other extinction events in the future – near or far – can we please agree that we need to share our lives with our pets? Our pets make our lives better in innumerable ways. I know I'm preaching to the choir for many pet lovers. Dogs and cats (and other pets) provide friendship, love, and companionship. For many people they are family – sometimes the only family we have. They stand with us through good and bad. They don't care if we are rich or poor. They accept our lot in life no matter what it may be. All they ask is that they can be with us.

It honestly breaks my heart to think that someone would advocate for a world of humans without pets or that there are people who believe that pets consume too many resources. We all know that there are countless owners who would go without food in order to feed their pets. Of course the environment is important and we have to take care of our wonderful world. But wherever there are humans, there will be pets. That's a bond that's too close to break.

Good Ol' Boys? Not So Fast

I apologize for being absent for so long. It's been a busy legislative session in Tennessee. Every year there are always lots of bills relating to animals introduced and it's important to analyze them to see how they impact pet owners, breeders, animal businesses such as groomers, boarding kennels, and others, and generally figure out if a bill is needed, stupid, redundant, or downright harmful. Many bills are introduced by legislators who have good intentions – often because it is requested by a constituent who sees a real need in their district. However, too often the bill only looks at one side of an issue or the problem is so particular that it's already covered under existing law or it would be foolish to make a state law to cover it.

There was an article posted online yesterday that caught my attention: Series of pet protection bills die in TN legislature  According to this article, our House Ag committee is a black hole where good animal protection bills go to die.

From the article:

One proposal would have placed animal cruelty convicts on a registry for two years. One member of the House agriculture committee said it would endanger bird dog trainers, and the bill died.

Another proposal would have continued inspections at puppy mills. And a third would have required Tennesseans who tie up their dogs outside to give them at least 10 feet. Those bills aren't moving forward.

Supposedly, bills die as the result of some kind of “good ol' boy network.” Hogwash. I remember when I was new to legislation and the actions of legislators and committees seemed cruel and mysterious. I also thought things happened because of some good ol' boy network that was lined up against me and my friends. Well, maybe there is some of that at work in legislatures. People are only human and friendships probably play a role. But I can also say that what happens in the legislature happens because of hard work, study, and lots of communication.

Here's what happened to the bills above, for example. The animal abuser registry bill has been introduced in Tennessee repeatedly, and defeated repeatedly, for several years. It is pushed by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), one of the most left-wing animal rights groups in the country. They seek to give animals legal status as persons and animal abuse registries – which have never been legalized by any state – are one of their pet projects, so to speak. While this particular bill may have been instigated by a local constituent group, it serves the same purpose. While many people think that animal abuse is a gateway crime to becoming a serial killer and other serious crimes, there is contradictory evidence. When legislators were given this information, they killed the bill.

The “puppy mill” or commercial breeder law in Tennessee was set to expire in June of this year. A bill was introduced that would have removed the sunset provision and made the law permanent. However, the commercial breeder law, established in 2009, was nearly $1 million over budget. The law was based on figures from HSUS that stated Tennessee would sign up 500 breeders by 2014. The state signed up 20 breeders. The program was a complete failure and it would have been incalculably irresponsible for legislators to allow the program to continue when it was based on inaccurate fiscal data from HSUS and losing $300,000 per year.

The tethering bill that would have required people to keep dogs on tethers at least 10 feet long was, frankly, a disaster of a bill. First, tethering is already covered in Tennessee's cruelty statutes. Second, this bill was opposed by dog trainers, hunters, and groomers. Why? Because the way the bill was written, it would have affected all of these people who use short tie-outs for dogs in the normal course of their training and work. A dog groomer keeping a dog in place with a grooming noose on a table could have been included in this bill – that's how slippery the language was. A dog trainer keeping a dog in place on a short leash could have been included. (Ever worked with a clicker trainer who tries to teach a dog the “quiet” command?) Hunters keeping dogs on a “chain gang” would have become criminals. That's why this bill was defeated. Not because of a “good ol' boy” network or because the House Ag committee is a black hole for legislation. It's because the House Ag committee actually has some common sense when it comes to dogs.

People may call these “animal protection” bills and bemoan the fact that they didn't pass but there were darn good reasons why all of these bills deserved to die. Just because something sounds good or makes you feel all warm and fuzzy doesn't mean it's really good for animals or animal owners.

I Vote For My Dogs

I Vote For My Dogs

Carlotta Cooper

When you share your opinions with people as much as I do, you tend to get a lot of feedback from readers. Some of it is quite nice and I'm grateful. Those responses usually come from people who read DOG NEWS. I get messages that are much more hateful from animal rights people when I post online about animal rights issues or reply to a news article about dog breeding or animal legislation. If I listened to some of these people I would have various broken bones and/or be dead by now. One person told me that I was “pretending to be a humane person” because the avatar photo with my online reply was a picture of my dog. It seems that only animal rights people can love their dogs.

One kind of message always leaves me a little confused. If I state an opinion disliking AR-inspired regulation for dog breeders, I often get approving messages from people who assume that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool conservative or Tea Party person. They're ready to take me to the next meeting and tell me all about the horrors of the Democratic party.

I should say right here that I don't really have a party anymore. I'm a dog person. I vote for my dogs. Property rights, regulation, finances – for me everything comes down to how things are going to affect me and my dogs. When someone runs for office, I want to know if HSUS owns them or not. Actually, if HSUS can buy a politician, someone else can probably buy him or her, too, but that's the issue that concerns me. I no longer care which party someone is in. I think there are good and bad people in both parties. One of the things I do in my state each election is help the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance send out and analyze questionnaires about animal issues for candidates running for office so we can make endorsements. They have volunteers in many states who work on this project and it's a good way to know where candidates stand on animal issues.

However, my best friend is a liberal Democrat who does just as much to fight bad dog legislation as I do. I know that it drives her crazy when people assume that you have to be a conservative Republican to oppose animal rights. The tone of many e-mail lists about dog legislation IS conservative or Republican-oriented and that's too bad in some ways. I think it makes Democrats and liberals feel under attack or responsible for some of the things that animal rights people do in the name of “helping” animals.

Why is animal rights linked to liberals or the Democratic party? Well, it's a social issue. At one time, in the 19^th century, improving care for animals was linked to improving care for children in our society. The idea that people are brutish and it requires government intervention to make them behave better and live the way they “should” live is a liberal idea. Plus, we live in a time when increased government regulation is associated with the Democratic party. And, it's the Democratic party that includes a caucus for animal rights at their Convention. Animal rights is just one of a long list of ways the party wants to make the world better, even if people object.

Please hold your letters. I began life as a Democrat, from generations of Democrats. FDR was a saint in my parents' home. My great-grandfather was named after Thomas Jefferson. I love the ideals of the Democratic party. I get them. I really do. But what began as a rural party with an affinity for farmers is more of an urban party now. When you look at polling data in any election now, you usually find that Republicans and conservatives win in rural areas – where there are more likely to be farmers and other people deeply involved with animals. Democrats and liberals are more likely to win in the cities. So, while today's Democratic party still shares some of the ideals of yesteryear, the demographic has changed to a large extent.

As you might imagine, this is a problem for dog owners, whether they are Republicans or Democrats. While HSUS donates to both Republican and Democratic candidates, they are far more heavily invested in Democratic candidates. They have a much stronger base in cities and universities and among young people. Many animal rights people today are located in cities and when they speak about animal issues they are speaking from ignorance. If they have pets they have probably only had a spayed or neutered animal. They don't know anything about breeding or whelping. They don't know about most health issues. They don't think in terms of generations. And they are usually completely ignorant of normal farming practices, even mistaking some ordinary things for “cruelty.” It's not easy to convince a 20-year-old college kid in the city that they don't know everything there is to know about animals. Afterall, you've only spent your entire life breeding and raising dogs. They have read an article online. All of this makes them easy prey for a manipulative group like HSUS to brainwash them.

It's easy for HSUS and ALDF (the Animal Legal Defense Fund – an animal rights legal group) to recruit young kids on colleges in urban areas. They can appeal to a natural urge to help animals and portray breeders and farmers – older people who live out in the sticks – as the bad guys. For these organizations and their recruits, they can subtly promote animal rights as a war on an older generation; as an attack on people whose values they despise – people who defend their property and claim their animals are part of that property by law. Because of the urban/rural party split, for many people it's also an attack on conservatives and others who believe the government is engaging in overreach and too much regulation. “These breeders must be regulated! They are doing terrible things to animals! Without government regulation, they will _____.” Fill in the blank. It's whatever HSUS and their allies can come up with to scare Congress and the public.

All of this happens without reference to the people who are most knowledgeable about dogs, of course, because, according to this paradigm, they can't be trusted.

Obviously, this version of reality ignores the fact that HSUS raises millions of dollars annually by using sad photos of kittens and puppies in order to spend the money on lobbying, pensions, and other things of self-interest. It's called “conflict fundraising.” Create a problem so you can make money on it. HSUS is expert at it. You have to wonder how many young people might choose to go into animal husbandry because they love animals if they weren't being diverted by the conflict needlessly created by HSUS. We have already lost several generations to the AR movement when they might have been more productively involved in animal welfare instead of animal rights.

All of this is to say that whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, it doesn't matter. Our common enemy is still the animal rights movement and HSUS. I would just point out that you don't have to be a Republican or a conservative to hate the over-regulation of breeders. In fact, some Democrats and liberals can feel alienated by their more conservative friends on dog lists when these subjects come up. Bad legislation is just that – bad legislation. You don't have to belong to one party or another to be able to recognize it or hate it.