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.

A Question of Identity

This article was originally published in the October 25, 2013 issue of DOG NEWS. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

A Question of Identity

Carlotta Cooper

Since September, when APHIS announced the final version of their regulation affecting dog breeders, there has been much discussion about what to do, who it affects, and what it will mean for breeders in the future. I don't think it's stretching things too much to say that this rule is a turning point for dog breeders. It calls upon us to ask ourselves who we are going to be. Are we going to remain traditional hobby breeders, generally breeding according to the ethical guidelines of breed parent clubs? Or, are we going to become regulated commercial breeders operating under the rules of the Animal Welfare Act? In short, it's a question of identity.

Bear with me while I relate a little history, please.

While most people are aware that the Irish came to the United States in great numbers, they usually think that this happened in the 1840s, as a result of the potato famine. In reality, the Irish, and Scotch-Irish from Northern Ireland, had been coming to America since the 17th century in large numbers. This was largely because of something called the Penal Laws in Ireland. These laws were passed by Britain, which ruled Ireland (it's a long story), with the explicit intention of stamping out resistance to British rule.

Under the Penal Laws Catholics, Presbyterians, and other dissenters from British rule were singled out and punished with the following acts (among others):

• Exclusion of Catholics from most public offices (since 1607), Presbyterians were also barred from public office from 1707.
• Ban on intermarriage with Protestants; repealed 1778

• Catholics barred from holding firearms or serving in the armed forces (rescinded by Militia Act of 1793)
• Bar from membership in either the Parliament of Ireland or the Parliament of England
• Disenfranchising Act 1728, exclusion from voting until 1793;
• Exclusion from the legal professions and the judiciary;
• Education Act 1695 – ban on foreign education; repealed 1782.
• Bar to Catholics and Protestant Dissenters entering Trinity College Dublin; repealed 1793.
• Ban on Catholics inheriting Protestant land
• Prohibition on Catholics owning a horse valued at over £5 (in order to keep horses suitable for military activity out of the majority's hands)
• 'No person of the popish religion shall publicly or in private houses teach school, or instruct youth in learning within this realm' upon pain of twenty pounds fine and three months in prison for every such offence. Repealed in 1782. [5]

(Source: Wikipedia, “Penal Laws, Ireland”)

According to British statesman Edmund Burke, writing at the end of the 18^th century, "The Penal Laws were a machine of wise and elaborate contrivance, as well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people, and the debasement in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man.”

Some of these laws were not repealed until Ireland separated from Britain following World War I. They undoubtedly played a role in stirring Irish anger and rebellion throughout the 18^th and 19^th centuries.

You can see from reading these laws that in many cases the purpose was to strip the Irish population of their identity. Beyond practical measures like depriving people of a good horse, the government was making sure that the Irish Catholic point of view was not represented in Parliament; that Irish Catholics were not well-educated; and they were making it as hard as possible to carry on with their religion and other ways of life. The only way for advancement was to become a Protestant and embrace the British rule of Ireland.

Looking back, we know that these efforts were unsuccessful. However, for approximately three centuries they brought pain and suffering to millions of Irish and caused many Irish to leave the country for America, Canada, and other places where they could be free.

Does the APHIS rule rise to the level of the Penal Laws? Well, perhaps not. But it certainly shares elements with them. I would also say that, taken as a whole, the laws that have been instigated by the animal rights movement to deprive breeders and pet owners of their rights are made with the same purpose as the Penal Laws. Animal rights laws are being made with the intention of making it as hard as possible to continue breeding dogs or other animals; and the new APHIS regulation falls into that category. These laws are also made with the intention of depriving us of our identity. The APHIS rule would change us from small home breeders to commercial breeders subject to the Animal Welfare Act laws. That means that you couldn't have a litter of puppies in your bedroom or kitchen or interact with your dogs in the same way you do now. It would break the close bond you have with your dogs.

While there are some possible exemptions under the APHIS rule, they are mostly found in the 88 pages of commentary that accompanies the actual rule which renders them somewhat “squishy.” They can be read as agency intent but, if push comes to shove when you are dealing with an APHIS inspector, the inspector can follow the letter of the rule. If you are claiming an exemption because you breed for “breeding purposes,” yet you sell some of your puppies as pets, you might find yourself being investigated by APHIS on a “case by case” basis.

Even if APHIS is lenient with these exemptions in the beginning, it seems likely that this honeymoon period won't last. How long before HSUS threatens to sue APHIS to force them to adhere to the actual rule and disregard the rosy commentary and the gauzy exemptions? We know that HSUS has its own team of lawyers and they are more than willing to sue government agencies at the drop of a hat. They will sue to make APHIS enforce the rule more strictly, if necessary. That would mean an end to most of the feel-good exemptions that APHIS has been peddling in order to soothe breeders and prevent an injunction prior to the rule going into effect on November 18. Everything that seems ambiguous now can and will be read as HSUS wishes it to be read after November 18, even if they have to take APHIS/USDA to court to make that happen. There is no reason to think that won't happen. That is the HSUS track record. When has HSUS ever been satisfied with a rule, regulation, or law? Even in the initial conference call announcing the new rule, HSUS and ASPCA officials stated their disappointment with some aspects of the new rule while praising APHIS for regulating breeders.

This new rule does strike at the identity of dog breeders. Will you become USDA licensed and kennel your dogs? Will you convert part of your home to an area that can house dogs under AWA rules? Will you have unannounced inspections of your home or property? Will you allow the USDA to turn you into a commercial breeder? What will happen to hobby dog breeders? Unlike the Irish, we can't take up our belongings (or our dogs) and head for another country.

Sure, if you have four or fewer bitches and/or you never ship a puppy, you probably have nothing to worry about. You can keep your head down and ignore everything going on around you. But if you care about your breed at all, you should care about what happens. How many people in your breed will be affected by the new rule? Every breeder who is affected means someone – and their dogs – could be stopped from breeding. That means a loss of your breeding options. It means a stud dog you can't use or a puppy you can't buy in the future. Most of our breeds already have small gene pools. A rule like this, which will make it harder for many people to breed, will harm our breeds. It affects every single one of us who loves intentionally-bred dogs.

I believe that we should choose to remain hobby breeders. Those who claim that this rule will not harm hobby breeders are mistaken or living in denial. There are options. You can write to your congressman. You can write to the House Agriculture Committee. You can contact AKC Government Relations. You will likely get back form letters in reply. But over 70,000 people signed the AKC's petition against the APHIS rule last year. Breeders oppose this rule. If a case can be made, we need AKC to step up and speak for us now to stop this rule. Otherwise, hobby breeders are going to cease to exist as we know them now.

We Found The Money You Donated To HSUS

Want to see something interesting? Take a look at the report that was recently filed with the Tennessee Ethics Commission by lobbyists working on behalf of the Humane Society of the United States.

Tennessee Ethics Commission

Lobbying Expenditure Report (ss-8011)

Contact Information

NameThe Humane Society of the U.S.
Address2100 L Street, NW 
CityWashington
CountryUNITED STATES
State/ProvinceDC
Zip/Postal Code20037
Phone Number850-386-3435 Ext.
Fax Number 850-386-4534
Email Addressnkrzycki@humanesociety.org

Company Leadership Information

Name of CEOWayne Pacelle
Name of CFO Gwen Crane
Name of Lobbyist SupervisorLaura Bevan
Title of Lobbyist SupervisorRegional Director

Nature of Company Business

-agriculture
-crime & criminal procedure
-environment/public lands
-law enforcement
-parks & wildlife

Nature / interest of the employer, e.g. "insurance company," "professional association," etc. nonprofit organization

Total Aggregate Lobbyist Compensation

Total $25,000 - $50,000

Lobbying-Related Expenses

Total $50,000 - $100,000

Aggregate Total of All In-State Events

Total None

Lobbyist Information

Name	Address	City	State	Zip	Country	In-House	Date Added
Leighann McCollum	1011 Buckingham Circle	Franklin	TN	37064	USA	In-House	08/07/2013
David McMahan	211 7th Ave North	Nashville	TN	37219	USA	In-House	08/07/2013
Anna Richardson	211 7th Ave North	Nashville	TN	37219	USA	In-House	08/07/2013
Caroline Straight	211 7th Ave North	Nashville	TN	37219	USA	In-House	08/07/2013
Beth Winstead	211 7th Ave North	Nashville	TN	37219	USA	In-House	08/07/2013

Back

• Home

• Help and FAQs
• Search Reports
• Privacy Statement

That's how much money -- and how many lobbyists -- HSUS had working in the state during the six month period from January to June when our legislature was in session. Of course, HSUS will tell you that they only care about animals and they're not a political organization. They just spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in a state with a population of 6.5 million people -- quite small in terms of population -- because they like to spend money, right? Maybe the truth is that they like to control people and what they do with their animals. And they like to try to buy public opinion and sway lawmakers to spread an anti-agriculture agenda.


These figures are probably on the low side anyway. HSUS publicly boasted in the news when they were fighting Andy Holt's bill to require someone secretly videotaping animal abuse to share the video with law enforcement that they were spending over $100,000 on their media campaign in the state. They also took in a $25,000 contribution from Ellen Degeneres when Wayne Pacelle appeared on her show to talk about the the bill. The figures also don't include the hiring of "outreach director" Eric Swafford to lobby the Walking Horse community in the state during this same time. We wonder if these reported figures would bear much scrutiny from the Ethics Commission?

By the way, HSUS is listed as an "Employer of Lobbyists" in 40 other states besides Tennessee. That's a lot of lobbying for a group that claims it doesn't lobby.

We mustn't forget the ASPCA either. They use the same lobbyists in the state and they kicked in $25,000-35,000 for lobbying and lobbying expenses during this period.

Tennessee Ethics Commission

Lobbying Expenditure Report (ss-8011)

Contact Information

NameASPCA
Address424 East 92nd Street 
CityNew York
CountryUNITED STATES
State/ProvinceNY
Zip/Postal Code10128
Phone Number646-291-4559 Ext.
Fax Number 212-860-3560
Email Addressbeverly.jones@aspca.org

Company Leadership Information

Name of CEOMatt Bershadker
Name of CFO Mark Abrahams
Name of Lobbyist SupervisorNancy Perry
Title of Lobbyist SupervisorSVP, Government Relations

Nature of Company Business

-charitable & nonprofit organizations

Nature / interest of the employer, e.g. "insurance company," "professional association," etc. animal welfare

Total Aggregate Lobbyist Compensation

Total $10,000 - $25,000

Lobbying-Related Expenses

Total Less than $10,000

Aggregate Total of All In-State Events

Total None

Lobbyist Information

Back

• Home

• Help and FAQs
• Search Reports
• Privacy Statement

ASPCA does have a lobbyist who is active in Tennessee named Sherry Rout but she is not reported here which is odd since she apparently lives in Memphis.

Of course, ASPCA doesn't lobby either. It's all about the animals, right? So, just where do your donations go when you see those sad commercials on TV? Why, they go right here, to Tennessee when these charlatan organizations want to poke around in agricultural affairs. Did you really think they went to help puppies and kittens?