Irreconcilable Differences.... INDEED

When it comes to the No-Kill Sheltering movement, I have always been squarely on board. Years ago, I read Nathan Winograd's books on the subject and found them enlightening, uplifting, and just plain exhilarating! California Federation of Dog Clubs, along with PetPAC, co-sponsored a no-kill sheltering seminar given by Winograd in Ventura, California at the July dog show cluster just a few years back. This was during the time when we were in the throes of battle with humaniacs who wanted every pet in the state to be spayed or neutered. 

At that time, I found Mr. Winograd to be a reasonable and earnest proponent of the cause of shelter reform. While he never mentioned being opposed to our mandatory spay-neuter proposal, he never outwardly advocated for it either. I had assumed that the groups asking him to do a presentation might have questioned his philosophy to see if it jived with the world view of animal owners and breeders.

In Mr. Winograd's seminar and his writing, there was never any blame placed on breeders or the public at large for issues with shelter killings; the blame was always placed squarely where it belonged, on regressive shelter management.There was certainly no mention made of blaming nebulous "abusers" for animals in shelters. Non-judgmentalism was the order of the day. 

It was a refreshing change from the lynch-mob mentality of the so-called "animal rights" groups who have always profited solely by highlighting pornographic pictures of animal abuse and neglect. In fact, Mr. Winograd is usually at odds with groups such as PETA, the HSUS, the ASPCA and is a very vocal critic of these groups who proclaim to be pro-animal but instead push for programs and policies that encourage needless shelter killings. At least, he criticized their killing ways, so one would think he also opposed other insane and illogical animal rights world views.I was happy to have him autograph my copy of "Redemption". I drove home with an exhilarating new hopefulness for the future of America's shelter animals.

I wrote a glowing, positive review for Winograd's book on Amazon. I joined the California Federation of Dog Clubs in order to help in the cause of public education to promote humane and responsible pet ownership, while at the same time ardently fighting to preserve ownership rights.

Meanwhile, as time passed, I noticed some disturbing trends. Clues that should have alerted my normally steady radar when it comes to trustworthy people. Winograd came out with a vegan cookbook. Well, OK, he's a vegan, but not an ARist who would ever try to legislate his way of thinking on the rest of us, right??

Wrong. Boy oh boy, was I ever WRONG.

Next we began to hear ramblings from Winograd about "puppy mills". In this blog post from 2012, Winograd answers a question about pet store sales:

 “Given that pet overpopulation is a myth, should we still fight to stop pet stores from selling puppies?” My answer was “Yes.” Because even if every shelter embraced the No Kill philosophy and the programs and services that make it possible, even if no dog or puppy was killed in a shelter again, we’d still want to close down puppy mills.

Say WHAT? Where to begin? Pet stores as evil peddler of abuse and greed, all the other bogus stereotypes. He goes on to describe his view of the horrors of dog breeding in establishments he slurs with the "PM" term. Naturally, we get no specific examples. Just hysterical ramblings.

And further down in the same blog post, Winograd states his opinion about breeders and the AKC quite clearly:

Moreover, I’ve held workshops on shutting down puppy mills or closing down their markets at every No Kill conference. I bashed the AKC in Redemption. And I believe that though dogs are not dying because of pet overpopulation, they are still dying. And as long as that is true, I believe people should adopt from a rescue or shelter. I also could not care less about maintaining breeds and never have. As far as I am concerned, if all dogs become all-mutt, that would be fine with me and probably healthier for the dogs. I’m a Heinz 57 man myself.

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=10853

Funny, I attended that conference of his years ago, hosted by a dog show and dog interest groups. Oddly enough, he never made mention of his belief in "puppy mills", "adopt, don't shop", and had he mentioned his aversion to DOG BREEDS...well, I think you can imagine it would not have garnered a warm reception. I also read "Redemption" and honestly do not remember any jab at the AKC, but I'll have to go back and see if the stars in my eyes blinded me to the subtle displays of Winograd's ulterior anti-breeding motives.

Vegan...strike ONE. Puppy mill rhetoric, strike TWO! Bashing AKC for no apparent reason, other than the fact that it represents dog breeders: Strike THREE. 

But hey, we even have AKC breeders who buy into veganism and who call other breeders that "PM" slur, who are heavily involved in rescue; some even have those "until there are none, save one" and "if you breed, rescue. If you don't breed, rescue anyway" signature lines in their emails. They don't believe in their hearts that people should have the freedom to breed in an unrestricted manner. How about all the breed club people who believe no one should breed without health testing and dogs being titled? Hey, folks, these people are supposedly on our side and they walk among us.

Now we here at this blog have been openly critical at times of the AKC; But there is ONE big reason why AKC deserves our support. 

AKC is US. It represents the vast majority of dog breeders in this country. Rightly or wrongly in our methodology, we are the AKC and they are us. It's our family, and it is exactly what we make of it; no more, no less. Our delegates vote on the actions to be taken and on who will ascend to the upper hierarchy of the managing Board of Directors. The flaws of AKC are all our flaws. On the other hand, the very promotion and proliferation of dogs as pets in this country is due in large part to the AKC.

This is what separates us from animal wrongist "humaniacs". They don't want people to breed pets, or in fact to even OWN pets! That's the ultimate goal from their point of view.....NO PETS, no animals in our lives at all. "Enjoyment from a distance".

 

Does Winograd really differ from other humaniacs? Here is a quote from PETA's  president Ingrid Newkirk:

 "For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship — enjoyment at a distance."

Why, these words could have come directly from Winograd's mouth! He has paraphrased the exact same sentiments on his blog!! Ingrid and Nathan, long-lost twins separated at birth?

Winograd's objective was insidious but is now becoming crystal clear. His goals are the same as any other radical animal extremist group. Those stray sheep in our own flock need to eventually recognize the animal rights wolf at the door. And not just recognize the threat but ATTACK with our full force of effort! We hang in there with our own crowd, hoping they will "come to Jesus", because they are our eventual only hope to preserve a way of life that deserves preservation.

Winograd is exponentially more dangerous than assorted misled dog owners, because he sets himself up as an expert on matters of public policy regarding animal ownership.....while he doesn't believe in dog breeding!! According to him, dogs should just randomly mate and become free-ranging "Heinz 57" purposeless creatures. Or, worse, should all be sterilized until they no longer exist.

And what step would best separate people from their pets and from breeding? How about an ANIMAL ABUSER REGISTRY. Yes, this is the latest brainchild of this very dangerous wolf in sheep's clothing, this snake in the grass named Nathan Winograd. A registry with the intent to enshrine the names of “abusers” so that they will have a scarlet “A” emblazoned on their chest. Only not for anything quite as fun as adultery. The idea is for “Offenders” to be publicly known, and barred from animal ownership way beyond any legal penalties they may have already paid.

I went to Nathan Winograd’s Facebook page, which I had previously “liked” and tagged as a favorite for California Federation of Dog Clubs as well, to weigh in on this very onerous idea. I posted a few thoughts. Minor offenses like failure to license are considered animal offenses, should you be denied animal ownership due to that? What about dirty teeth? Chimed in another commenter. People have been prosecuted for that. Be careful what you wish for, someone else said, because when your rescue is busted for being over a numbers limit, you will then be branded “abuser”. One defender of the idea remarked “your veterinarian can speak in your defense!” To which I replied that there had been many unjust animal busts over the protestations of the accused’s veterinarian. I finished off my comment by stating that I believed that the rights of humans were being violated by misanthropists such as those in support of this registry. My friend Mr. Kirby also posted some thoughtful comments. We were met with venom such as this:

 "Brenda Mcnulty and I would say that THOMAS KIRBY and his ilk have shown their true colors......do u have children? how about I abuse them and see how u like it assholes."

Within a short period of time, lo and behold, all opposing comments were removed by Mr. Winograd. Also, I and other critics may no longer comment on that page! However, the offensive comment flinging the “asshole” insult and threatening our CHILDREN with their particular brand of misanthropist violence remains. Subsequently, Winograd posted a long, pompous statement, which for sake of brevity I will only include the beginning portion::

NW: Thank you for trying to respond to the inane, conspiratorial, anti-animal positions from Kirby and other trolls with your thoughtfulness and compassion. I’ve deleted and banned them.
I welcome criticism because criticism—when it is fair, thoughtful, and truthful—helps the No Kill philosophy I champion, grow. But criticism that defends an immoral status quo through selective use and even disregard of the truth is unconscionable. I used to spend a lot of time answering each of their criticisms, trying to educate them and others, and it’s been largely a waste of time. Instead of dialog, they attacked; instead of discussing the issues, they accused. Recently, you may have heard that Popular Science magazine no longer allows comments on their articles. This is what they wrote: “Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting them off.”…. I would add that trolls are bad for the truth, too. I am joining Popular Science in two ways: I am turning off comments on my Huff Post pieces going forward and I am deleting and banning anti-animal, pro-killing trolls on this page.

WHOA. Let’s stop right there! Those who disagree with Winograd are automatically “anti-animal, pro-killing trolls” in his teeny tiny little mind! And the hypocritical Winograd, who proclaims to welcome criticism, shuts off comments and bans any disagreement. All in the name of science! He believes that his political machine gun of a registry is….scientific! He is omniscient and any disagreement is, well, simply wrong; and, worse than that, EVIL in intent!

What a giant crock of crap!

The concept of animal rights flies in the face of science. Science decrees that there is a food chain. Dogs and cats are not vegans, and neither are people according to the biology of our bodies. Science is the reason we include dogs in our lives to assist mankind as guide dogs, police dogs, military dogs, guardians, herders, and hunters (watch the animal rights nuts heads explode trying to process the concept of HUNTING in the natural order of life). Science also has proven that pet ownership confers health benefits on humans; reduced blood pressure, lower stress levels, better heart health. Those who breed animals so that people can enjoy pet ownership are doing society a SERVICE.

Now THAT’S science.

Another commenter to Winograd’s page noted: Nathan Winograd I firmly support your no kill and totally believe in it but THIS I can not get behind. A registry like this will be abused. If someone was once convicted of animal abuse but is now legally able to get animals NOBODY has the right to say that they should not. I do not like the sex offenders lists for the same reasons. People will get put on the list for things that are not really abuse ( no water at the time of inspection, very minor things or having too many animals) these people do not deserve to be haunted for the rest of their lives by their conviction Many people that are convicted of animals abuse took a plea (I have talked and read many abuse cases) to escape a worse sentence even tho they really did not do any abuse. Many cases are bogus raids. This is like on a sex offender registry where the girl was 17 and the guy 21 (my parents) but girls dad filed charges. That guy does not deserve to be called a sex offender or harassed. Nor do those that are accused of abuse but no abuse happened. As for the ones that did abuse for real will continue and that will be found out.

But guess what?? A candidate for Los Angeles City Council, David Hernandez, has not had the opportunity to read any of the opposing points to this “abuser registry” concept, which as we have noted were removed. Only glowing comments with praise for this program remain. Mr. Hernandez writes on NW’s Facebook page:

“Can we implement this at a Local Level? As a candidate for LA City Council I am will to make this part of my platform…..Thank you, will get under way in presenting this to the Neighborhood Councils in Los Angeles with the goal of getting them to request the Los Angeles City Council adopt it.”

Just peachy!

I believe I will never use the phrase “No Kill” again because it is inextricably entwined with misanthropist Winograd. From here on out, I’ll only note “successful shelters”. Leave the drama to the drama queens like Nathan Winograd.

Legislation proposal from those who wish to ban breeding and ultimately eliminate animals from our lives.

AVMA Surrendered to the Dark Side

As an owner of multiple dogs I was surprised to find that the American Veterinary Medical Association has position statements on their website, including a position statement in support of PUPS. PUPS is the federal bill that would subject many more breeders to APHIS guidelines. You know, those rules that force breeders to keep their dogs and puppies in sterile environments, to log all activity including any interaction with their dogs/puppies (thereby discouraging such interaction) and to submit to unannounced inspection of their property at any time.

 

Naturally, such unreasonable requirements discourage most reasonable people from breeding and would drastically reduce the ranks of dog breeders; but, of course, that is the whole intention of the new rules. The are certainly not intended to support and encourage dog breeding. I was pleased to see my friend post this note to the AVMA.

 

March 19, 2013 at 1:46 pm

Hi AVMA/Animal Rights Group:

 Do you have a list of vets who do NOT belong to AVMA? If so I would like to have it so I can find a vet that supports my rights to own, breed and co-own my chosen breed. A vet who realizes that I could own NO breeding animal on my own property and still fall under the PUPS guidelines. A vet who realizes that my home environment cannot be washed down with 180 degree water and that I have soft surfaces that are not "impervious to moisture" so I would never be able to comply with PUPS. A vet who knows that rally, obedience and flyball involve "repetitive exercise' and that I would not be in compliance with PUPS if I used these as forms of exercise for my dogs. A vet who knows that when I write him/her a check for thousands or dollars or slap down my open-ended credit card to save my dog's life that I am a caring breeder no matter how many "breedable' females I own or co-own or how many puppies I sell in one year. A vet who knows that without me, he/she would not be in business, or that their business would be sadly curtailed.

 Please send me that list of non-AVMA veterinarians so I can support that person.. the one who respects my rights, and my dogs, and my brain.

Thank you

 

 

BRAVO!!! I'll be asking for that list myself; or perhaps using the AVMA website function of "find a member" to determine who NOT to support with my hard-earned dollars.

 

This position statement of the AVMA is rather foolish, because after all, veterinarians are ultimately the ones who actually profit from dogs, not the vast majority of breeders. And where would pet lovers be without breeders? Petless and lonely, that's where.

 

Elimination of pet ownership is the dream of the animal rights extremists. It seems AVMA has already surrendered to the Dark Side. Let's hope for the good of society that they will wise up sooner rather than later.

 
 

Your Right to Own a Pet

There exist umpteen internet websites expounding on the responsibilites of pet ownership. And many of them loudly proclaim that "pet ownership is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT."

Standing at the helm of this "Pets are a Privilege" movement, we find the American Veterinary Medical Association. The AVMA Executive Board recently approved new guidelines for responsible pet ownership. The guidelines are prefaced with this statement:

"Owning a pet is a privilege and should result in a mutually beneficial relationship."  (1)

      

The devil, you say. Really? A privilege?

A "privilege" is defined as a "right or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most; the condition of enjoying special rights." A privilege is a special right granted by those in authority; something for which you must obtain permission. A right is something for which you do not need permission.  

Pets are property, in both a technical and a legal sense. (More about that in a future post). Our right to own a pet is the same as the right to own any other property and must not be considered a privilege; something  by definition "beyond the advantage of most."

The UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" states:

 "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.  No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

Six of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution refer directly or indirectly to personal property rights. (2)

Owning an animal is a right, as is ownership of any other property. It's not a privilege.

To further bolster the case for the pet ownership, consider the vital role pets play in out lives. Let's look to current research studies. Pet ownership provides health benefits such as reducing anxiety, lowering blood pressure, and reducing allergies. Pets provide companionship,  promote exercise and improve our social skills by helping to reduce shyness and isolation. (3)

We have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", so said the founders of our nation in the Declaration of Independence. Pet ownership definitely falls under the category of pursuit of happiness. Not to mention, it's good for our health.

Considering the postive health benefits of pet ownership, that right should not be abridged. If pet ownership becomes a "privilege" there would then exist an unreasonable usurpation of our rights. We have a right to pursue our dreams, and a right to pet ownership.

We have the right to purchase and own property. But just because we own something does not mean that we can do with it as we please. Sometimes there are restrictions placed upon the use of certain types of property, like a car, a gun, or an animal. You need to obtain a driver's license to use your car. You can own a gun, but cannot use it for illegal purposes. You can own an animal, but you must comply with animal welfare regulations.

Property ownership is a right, which may not be abridged unless we abuse that right. If ownership of pets is to be considered a privilege, then we must meet special conditions and requirements and may even be denied permission to make our purchase. However, constitutionally and legally, we do not need permission to purchase property.

Some breeders and pet rescuers firmly believe that the best interest of the pet supercedes the considerations of the owner.  

"After working in rescue for many years" a friend recently confided "I sincerely believe that not everyone should own a dog."

And after working in a shelter for battered women, I suppose one might form the opinion that not everyone should get married. Not much of a revelation there. After working for child protective services, one might form the opinion that not everyone should have children. No epiphany there, either. After working in a hospital for many years, one might conclude that life is filled with doom, gloom and misery. But of course, such biased viewpoints are never accurate or balanced.

We cannot deny basic human rights based on the actions of those who abuse such rights. 

True, some people don't give the proper consideration to dog ownership prior to making their decision. But probably, the majority of owners DO. And should the basic rights to ownership of animals for everyone be denied due to a few bad apples?

Owning an pet involves a good deal of responsibility. When you own an animal, you have a moral obligation to provide food shelter, care and kindness. We even have laws in all 50 states requiring humane treatment of animals; laws that forbid neglect and abuse. 

The AVMA further delineates their proposed markers for "Responsible Pet Ownership" which includes such recommendations as keeping your pet for its entire lifetime, limiting breeding to help ease "overpopulation", and other debatable concepts. Of course, the AVMA recommends:

"Providing preventive (e.g., vaccinations, parasite control) and therapeutic health care for the life of pet(s) in consultation with, and as recommended by, its veterinarian."

Humans have the right to refuse to seek medical care if they so choose. I suppose if we exercise that option for our animals, then we are not "responsible". In the eyes of the AVMA, in this case, we don't deserve to have a pet! 

Never mind the blatant conflict of interest in the recommendations by so many veterinarians for yearly vaccinations and monthly parasite managment treatments.

Another factor to consider when positing "responsible pet ownership guidelines" is that we may be projecting our own values about pet ownership onto others. We may forget that not all dogs are destined to function as pampered companions. Is it unreasonable to expect dogs to work as service animals for the disabled? What about keeping packs of dogs for hunting, or using dogs for herding, or having an outdoor guard dog?

Then there is the admonition for "socialization and appropriate training for pets." But what if the dog's purpose is to protect the owner? Perhaps the owner doesn't WANT their pet to be social and friendly to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Many breed standards call for an "aloof" quality. Again, the purpose for which some "pets" are kept can vary. That does not make the owner "irresponsible."

But put aside the AVMA's responsible pet owner commandments for a moment. Let's examine how responsible we as a nation have been in regard to pet ownership.

There are over 78 million owned dogs in the US, and over 86 million owned cats. There is also an unknown number of feral cats, and a minute number of unowned, stray dogs. Of the 156 million pets in the US, and the many millions more feral cats that exist, a small fraction of animals, estimated at 6-8 million, transit through shelters each year. Less than 4%. considering a significant number are feral ownerless cats, WAY below 4% of the owned animals in this country.

That means that over 96% of animals in this country are owned in a responsible manner.

Each year in the US, there are 17 million people who will adopt a new pet and haven't decided exactly where to get this new pet from. And there exists an estimated 2-3 million adoptable pets in shelters who are killed. There are 17 million households available to absorb 2-3 million shelter pets. To prevent their deaths, all that would be needed is to effectively use some creative marketing skills. Yet even if every adoptable animal was adopted, we would still need 14 million more pets each year.

Yes, Virginia, we CAN adopt our way out this problem. It has happened in many communities already; communities where the shelters are empty and need to import dogs from other area and even other countries. I'd say as a nation, we have proven our responsibility. We've heeded the call to adoption and emptied many shelters in the process. We are responsible enough to deserve to count pet ownership among our basic rights. 

Yet our cultural zeitgeist remains one of sanctimony toward pet owners. We are regularly subjected to lectures about our "obligation" toward our pets as though we were a nation of reckless kindergartners.

Those 14 million households deserve their pets. Pet ownership - it's a right, not a privilege!

Pet ownership is a right, not a privilege.

(1) http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/ownership_guidelines.asp

(2) http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/private-property-and-government-under-the-constitution/

(3) http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/health-benefits-of-pets

The Disappearance of Animal Husbandry

This article originally appeared in the February 11, 2011 issue of Dog News. It is posted here by permission of the author.

The Disappearance of Animal Husbandry

Carlotta Cooper

Animal husbandry has been practiced for thousands of years; it’s been practiced ever since humans began domesticating and keeping animals. Yet today there are many people who don’t know what animal husbandry is. Recently the editor of a book on farming asked me if husbandry meant breeding or mating, which is a sad reflection on our educational system and her own knowledge. Just to clarify, animal husbandry is the practice of breeding and raising animals. The term is often applied to agriculture and livestock but it can be applied to all of the animal sciences which relate to domestic animals. Thus, I would say that breeding dogs is an animal husbandry practice. Cleaning your dogs’ ears on a regular basis is good animal husbandry. Practicing good grooming falls under animal husbandry, and so on.

Recently in Virginia (December 2010), a woman named Jean Cyhanick was convicted of cruelty to animals largely due to the fact that several of her dogs needed to have their teeth cleaned. I am not making this up or exaggerating it. You can read accounts of the woman’s trial on the Internet. . It was stipulated at the trial (both sides agreed) that most of Ms. Cyhanick’s dogs were in good condition. There was no seizure or raid in this case. However, Virginia law contains a provision that defines emergency veterinary treatment in the following terms:

... veterinary treatment to stabilize a life-threatening condition, alleviate suffering, prevent further disease transmission, or prevent further disease progression.

§ 3.2-6570. Cruelty to animals; penalty.

A. Any person who: ... (ii) deprives any animal of necessary ... emergency veterinary treatment ... is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

A Class 1 misdemeanor is the highest misdemeanor in Virginia law and is punishable by up to a year in jail and/or a fine of up to $2500. The next step up is a felony.

This is the law that was applied to Ms. Cyhanick’s dogs and their teeth, making tartar build-up into a veterinary emergency leading to animal cruelty.

There were several other charges. Ms. Cyhanick was a commercial breeder of small and Toy dogs. She had fewer than the 30 dogs allowed under Virginia law. However, because she had two relatives living with her, their dogs were also counted in her total, putting her one bitch over the limit. She was also charged with animal cruelty because two old dogs had old, healed eye injuries. And, she was charged with improper record-keeping and for selling two underage puppies. She sold a puppy that was six weeks old; Virginia law requires puppies to be seven weeks old. The original puppy sold was returned by the buyer. She asked him to choose an older puppy from another litter. He refused and insisted on getting another puppy from the same litter. After he did so, he turned her in to the authorities.

As a result of her convictions, Ms. Cyhanick will never again be able to sell dogs. She is facing several thousand dollars in fines, plus court costs and attorney fees. And, she must get rid of all but four of her dogs.

Virginia law also requires that commercial breeders obtain a pre-breeding vet approval before each bitch is bred. Ms. Cyhanick did not obtain those approvals.

It was obvious to observers that Ms. Cyhanick was railroaded in court on these dubious charges because she was a commercial breeder and the locals wanted to put her out of business, despite the fact that she had a very clean and well-run establishment. However, what interests me here is the role that veterinarians are increasingly playing in determining who can breed dogs and who can’t. Instead of allowing breeders to rely on traditional animal husbandry methods to determine when a dog’s teeth need to be cleaned; how to care for dogs with an old, healed injury; and to make decisions about breeding; it seems to have become necessary to consult with veterinarians on virtually every aspect of breeding and raising dogs. For instance, when did it become necessary for a breeder to have pre-breeding vet approval before breeding a dog? How and why should such a provision be part of a state law? Why should veterinarians be breed wardens? And, in what world is tartar on a dog’s teeth a life-threatening condition making someone guilty of animal cruelty?

It seems we should ask the American Veterinary Medical Association about some of these recent changes. Under fire from animal rights groups, the AVMA has moved further and further toward AR positions on many issues. Just recently they have changed the oath that new veterinarians are required to take. The new oath reads as follows:

"Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare, the prevention and relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge."

The changes include the addition of “animal welfare” and the “prevention” of animal suffering. These changes may make veterinarians much more proactive about involving themselves in the activities of their clients and their clients’ animals. According to statements issued by the AVMA, the organization wants to be a “global leader in animal welfare.”

Of course, other recent changes by the AVMA include the release of their AVMA Model Legislation report a few months ago — a report which was, unfortunately, praised and “embraced” by the AKC Board of Directors. This model legislation, which has already been used, in part, in Guildford, NC, to create a severe law against breeders, is certainly not in the best interest of dog breeders or of dogs. It contains many flaws, incorrect assumptions about breeders (both hobby breeders and commercial breeders), and it, again, makes veterinarians into breed wardens by requiring pre-breeding vet approvals for bitches. In addition, it stipulates that dogs should be raised together with other dogs, despite the fact that not all dogs are dog-friendly or do well when raised in a group. If you don’t raise your dogs in this group format, you risk being labeled as practicing animal cruelty by depriving your dogs of proper socialization or companionship.

Once again, I think we have to ask why veterinarians are making these decisions for breeders instead of breeders being allowed to use good animal husbandry skills and relying on their own experience in raising dogs. Should any veterinarian with no particular expertise with dogs have the right to make breeding decisions instead of an experienced breeder? Should veterinarians be determining how dogs are properly socialized when breeders know that this is something that needs to be done on a breed-by-breed, and even a dog-by-dog basis? I would say, definitely not. To put it succinctly, the AVMA needs to butt out of dog breeding and raising dogs. And, I would say that the AKC needs to take a much closer look at the AVMA’s model legislation and rescind their “embrace” of it before it is used further at the local and state level to make more bad laws against breeders. It makes no sense to have a Government Relations Department trying to fight bad laws against breeders when you have the Board of Directors condoning the kind of anti-breeder guidelines put forth by the AVMA.

The AVMA, perhaps sensing an untapped revenue source, is also very concerned with your dogs’ teeth. When I first began writing about dogs years ago, it was standard to suggest to owners that they should have their dogs’ teeth checked when they took their dogs to the veterinarian for their vaccinations. IF the teeth were bad, then you would probably opt for a professional cleaning under anesthesia once in your dog’s life. Several years ago that suggestion became a yearly mandate with a push to give your dogs dental chews and other products endorsed by the American Veterinary Dental College (who knew such a thing even existed?). $$ In the last year or so, the AVMA and the American Veterinary Dental College have been putting out news releases trying to encourage owners to take their dogs to the vet for a dental check-up every six months! $$$ Of course your dog’s teeth are important, but let's be reasonable! That’s more often than most people go to the dentist. How many people are really going to take their dogs to the vet for a dental exam every six months? Yet, if we're not careful, we will soon see six-month dental check-ups written into state laws as something that is necessary to prove you are not being cruel to your dogs.

Not only are the AVMA and its offshoot the American Veterinary Dental College encouraging more visits to the doggy dentist for your dog, but they are not very happy about laymen cleaning a dog’s teeth. If you get your dog’s teeth cleaned at a pet store where your dog is groomed, or by a non-veterinarian, the AVMA is watching. In many states it is perfectly legal for laymen to do teeth cleaning on dogs and other animals and the AVMA is not happy about that fact. Watch for more bills, known as CAVM, or Scope of Practice: Complementary and alternative veterinary medicine (CAVM) and other practice act exemptions in your state legislature. The AVMA has threatened to go to court before to sue laymen for cleaning dogs’ teeth.

And, it’s not just cleaning dog teeth which upsets the AVMA. The AVMA is taking over many traditional animal husbandry procedures in agriculture as well. In Tennessee a woman named Bonnie Cady was sued by the Tennessee Veterinary Medical Association a few years ago because she did artificial insemination and obstetrics work with horses. It was perfectly legal at that time in Tennessee for her to do so, and she was backed by the Tennessee Farm Bureau, which generally rules in all things agricultural. After several years of court proceedings, Ms. Cady won her case. However, the TVMA reached an agreement with Tennessee Farm Bureau, crafted a bill, and had the state legislature pass a law last year which prevents laymen from performing similar work in the future. The bill is so broad that it could even be applied to dog breeders helping each other do an AI breeding if the TVMA wanted to be picky about it. Similar laws are being passed in other states.

I haven't even tried to go into the AVMA's opposition to cropping and docking of dog breeds, a decision they reached without consultation with the AKC — a very animal rights position; or the aggressive push by veterinarians today to spay and neuter every dog they see, regardless of the dog's age, breed, or health. In my opinion, these are irresponsible actions.

While people have been practicing animal husbandry for thousands of years, the first veterinary school only dates to 1761 in France. Veterinarians were not recognized as a profession until 1844. The AVMA was not founded in this country until 1863. My question is, why are proven animal husbandry practices being swept aside by a profession which does not specialize in dogs or dog breeding? Why are dog breeders, the AKC, and state legislatures accepting as gospel the pronouncements of the AVMA when so many of them are self-serving and/or flawed?

I do not intend to attack any individual veterinarians. I have the greatest respect for good vets and I appreciate all that they have done for my animals over the years. However, I do call into question the AVMA as an organization, especially when its goals seem to be in direct conflict with the goals of dog breeders. As long as the AVMA seems to care more about appeasing the animal rights movement and making money than listening to dog breeders, or what is really in the best interests of dogs and other animals, then I think that their motives and actions should be questioned.