Today I am on a rant. For over 37 years I have enjoyed showing Lhasa Apsos, raising puppies, and meeting new people through showing and puppy sales. I have seen myself as a caring dog breeder, one who promotes the breed, who strives to better the breed, who tries to educate the public about the breed and to do some good in the world.
Call me paranoid, but I see threats to my hobby of showing and breeding. I see dog breeders condemned by animal rights activists for being dog breeders. I see dog breeders afraid to speak up to defend themselves against anti-breeding and anti-dog legislation cropping up in state after state for fear of reprisal, for fear that by speaking up they are painting targets on their own backs.
Some sad facts of life:
Some dog breeders raise puppies in substandard environments.
Some dog breeders see puppies as dollar signs, livestock, or commodities.
Some dog breeders' kennels are in deplorable conditions.
Some poor dogs never see the light of day or have a chance to run and play but are kept confined and bred, bred, bred until they are useless to their breeder and discarded.
Some dog breeders simply do not care about their dogs' health, environment, or potential.
SOME…not all, not even most,yet lately all are being targeted, the many being targeted for the sins of the few.
We've all seen the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) television advertising: the starving animals, the sad eyes, the sick dogs, cats, and horses being rescued. Let me say before I go on that anyone with an ounce of compassion hates seeing animals in those conditions and that our hearts go out to any living being with the capacity to love and be loved that suffers because of uncaring owners' abuse or neglect. Strict enforcement of the current Animal Welfare Act (AWA) would go a long way toward alleviating conditions leading to such abuse.
There is a movement afoot that, to anyone not knowing better and not understanding HSUS motives, sounds like a good cure for all this, especially as it concerns dogs. However, bills recently introduced in the Senate and Congress (S3424 and HR5434, known as the PUPS bills), if passed, may eventually spell the end of hobby breeders in this country. Anti-dog legislation in states across the country is often disguised as animal rights, animal welfare, or animal protection. Wipe out the hoarders, wipe out the awful puppy mills, wipe out the disreputable breeders…and in the process paint the reputable breeders with the same brush and wipe them out too. Ultimately the goal of the "animal rights" groups (i.e., HSUS and PETA) is met: no more dog ownership. Haven't you already noticed how language has insidiously changed from "dog owner" to "guardian" to "pet parent?" And haven't you noticed the change from "buying" to "adopting?"
If you are reading this blog, I assume you own and love a purebred Lhasa Apso or at least appreciate the breed. Whether you purchased that dog from me or from another Lhasa breeder, you love your dog and chances are, when he passes away, you will want another. Who can be without a Lhasa after loving one? Yet, repercussions from this legislation, if it passes, may preclude you from ever purchasing a puppy from a breeder like me again.
Why?
Consider the following comments then go to http://ifdco.homestead.com/legislation.html which is the legislation page of the Illinois Federation of Dog Clubs and Owners (IFDCO). Even if you are not from Illinois, the PUPS legislation has a national impact, so click the link for IFDCO's position statement about the bills before the House and Senate, and read why show and hobby breeders are troubled. Concerns include such items as the bill classifying a 4-month old female puppy as "breeding stock" if she is not spayed. Four months old folks! Females do not even have their first "season" until they are 6 months old or older! Many of us show breeders keep puppies longer than 4 months to evaluate them as potential show dogs. Even owning ONE such puppy, because she is not spayed and therefore has the potential to produce puppies (according to the PUPS legislation), turns a breeder into what the bill classifies as a "high volume" breeder. With the language of this bill, even if I have no dogs at my house yet co-own a 4-month old show prospect who resides with her co-breeder, that co-ownership makes me a "high volume" breeder because I own or co-own at least one intact female who is at least 4 months old.
Another statement says that a high volume breeder "offers for sale" 50 dogs in a one-year period. (Note the wording. It does not say "sells" but "offers for sale." There is a distinction.) For many hobby breeders, myself included, that seems excessive. I certainly have never in 37+ years of breeding offered 50 puppies or adults for sale in a single year's time. I seldom have more than two or three litters in a year, so someone like me might think, "Oh big deal. That number is so high it doesn't apply to most of us. We are exempt." But we won't be, especially if the bill passes and then the "powers that be" realize it is ridiculous to think one 4-month old puppy or even one adult female could ever produce 50 offspring in a year! Do you see an amendment in the making? It can be easy to make an amendment once a bill passes, especially based on logic (i.e., "How can a single female produce 50 puppies in a year? That makes no sense! We need to fix that! Let's lower that number.") Logic needs to be applied now, and logic says this bill has many faults.
And for a breeder like me whose dogs are housed in her home and who raises puppies in the house, the bill presents additional obstacles to my remaining a breeder.
To quote a section taken from the position statement:
"Consequences of the bill for the home hobby breeder: This bill poses enormous ramifications for a home hobby dog breeder that would now be defined under the Animal Welfare Act as a “High Volume Retail Breeder.” In order to be licensed, they would have to be inspected through APHIS to ensure that their facility (i.e., their home in most cases) meets the engineering standards required for a commercial USDA-licensed kennel. Unless such a breeder keeps their dogs kenneled in a separate portion of the home, and away from the "human" home proper, it would be difficult to meet the minimum engineering standards as directed. Several obvious conflicts arise when attempting to apply the specific kenneling standards contained in the AWA to the typical residential home where most dogs owned by hobby breeders live. These conflicts include:
1. The AWA requires that all walls, floors, and other surfaces that would be in direct contact with the dogs must be of a substance “impervious to moisture”. Therefore, carpeting, uncoated wood flooring, upholstered furniture, wallpaper, and fiber matting would generally not be considered as acceptable surfaces in areas of the house in which the dogs live. These materials, however, are extremely common in typical homes, including those of hobby breeders who do not require licensing under the current law.
2. Under the current AWA, “primary enclosure” surfaces and food and water bowls must be sanitized at least once every two weeks using one of the following allowed methods of cleaning: live steam under pressure; hot (minimum 180° F) water combined with soap or detergent; and a professional mixture of detergent with disinfectant. These cleaning methods are not readily available to a typical home owner, who maintains their dogs in their residence. These methods may also not be necessary for use on a frequent basis for an owner with only a small number of dogs living with the owner in his or her home.
3. The required size of primary enclosure is not in conformance with standard crate sizes for home use. According to dog breeder regulations found in the AWA, a “primary enclosures” (e.g., crate or pen) as defined must have the following square footage: (length of the dog in inches + 6 inches) x (length of the dog in inches + 6 inches) / 144, with “length of the dog” being measured from the tip of the dog’s nose to the base of the dog’s tail. In addition, the required height of the enclosure must be at least 6 inches taller than the dog when it is in a standing position. The results of these calculations provide for a much larger crate size than standard sizes generally used in a home. While perfectly desirable for dogs confined for long periods of time, such as at a professional kennel, these required enclosure sizes do not take into account that a dog which resides in a home with humans is typically crated only for a portion of the day, such as while the owners are at work.
Therefore, since dogs residing in their owners’ houses usually spend a regular portion of each day outside their crates, these mandated crate sizes are unrealistic and unnecessary for home use.
4. AWA regulations state that breeders are not to house their dogs with other species unless the two species are “compatible.” Many hobby breeders house other mammalian and non-mammalian species in their residence along with their dogs, in long-term safety and harmony for all pets. Should the “primary enclosure” for these dogs be the owner’s residence, shared with other species, it is unclear how an APHIS Inspector would view these multi-pet species households."
What I have presented here just scratches the surface of concerns that show breeders like myself have regarding our futures as dog breeders and exhibitors. Ramifications also exist for animal shelters, rescue groups, those who raise dogs for hunting, therapy, and other tasks.
Quoting another section from IFDCO's position statement:
"…New licensing requirements for home hobby breeders would drive many
of them away from this pursuit, lowering numbers of quality purposefully bred puppies available for the American public. It would become increasingly more difficult for a pet purchaser to obtain a healthy, socialized puppy of known pedigree, since the numbers of unregulated and “underground” breeders, producing puppies of questionable health and temperament, would proliferate, as would sources of “random bred” puppies. Potential negative implications from this bill exist also for kennels producing dogs for professionals, and even for the rescue community.
Finally, the bill’s provisions show neither an application nor understanding of scientific animal husbandry principles. Therefore, this bill must be opposed in its entirety."
Please visit the IFDCO website for links to the bills and to the IFDCO position statement. This bill, under the guise of addressing the "sad facts" listed at the beginning of this post, will punish the good with the bad, the caring, reputable breeders with the disreputable ones. Should this bill become law, it will affect breeders in every state. When hobby and show breeders disappear as a result of being unable to comply with the law's requirements, from where will you get your next puppy? A pet store? The local shelter? Will you get to sit on the floor of my family room and play with the litter? Will you get to meet your puppy's parents and perhaps even grandparents or aunts and uncles? Will you get to develop a relationship with a knowledgeable breeder to whom you can turn when you have questions or concerns?
Think about it, read the position statement, and decide to write some letters to Washington!
Life is good when you have a Lhasa to love you.
Joyce
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment