The Sale of Puppies Online

This article originally appeared in The Fancy Speaks column in the February 10, 2012 issue of Dog News. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

The Sale of Puppies Online

Carlotta Cooper

I read the January 20, 2012 DOG NEWS editorial “Regulating The Sale Of Puppies Online” with concern. Although it’s clear that the editorial is well-intentioned, it comes dangerously close to embracing the PUPS bill which is now in Congress. And PUPS, H.R. 835/S. 707, would be very harmful for hobby dog breeders.

The editorial argues that the Internet is used for the sale of dogs, which is true, and that some of these dogs come from places which have no policy or guidelines for their sale. Some even come from “the unregulated commercial breeder.” This is also probably true. The editorial goes on to ask, “Who is there to determine whether or not the seller is responsible? Who establishes the policy to protect the dog in these situations whether or not it is a commercial or homebred sale?”

I would like to point out that people have been selling dogs by means of newspaper classified ads, magazine ads, billboard notices, and other forms of commerce and advertising for generations. No one has been regulating these retail sales directly to the public. The thinking has always been that the buyer needs to be careful when buying anything, from anyone. Caveat emptor has a very real meaning when it comes to buying a pet. The buyer should exercise due caution when buying a puppy or dog, whether they are buying from a magazine, newspaper, or over the Internet. It is not the responsibility of the government to regulate the sale of puppies for the buyer. It is up to the buyer to use some good judgment when making a purchase. This hasn’t changed since people were buying puppies from ads in dog magazines in the 1980s, or buying dogs at any other time in history.

Large commercial breeders who are inspected by the USDA are already regulated and they do report their wholesale sales. However, the retail sale of puppies and dogs directly to individual buyers has never been regulated at the federal level. In many states this kind of sale is now regulated at the state level, if you sell more than x number of puppies per year. In some states it is covered under a sales and use tax, the same kind of tax that covers the sale of Girl Scout Cookies or having a yard sale. If you sell more than a certain number of puppies per year in some states you would be required to get a business and/or kennel license so you could regularly report your tax income from sales.

HSUS calls the fact that retail sales to individuals are not regulated at the federal level a “loophole” and, in PUPS, they are trying to change this situation. But this exemption of retail sales for small breeders is not a loophole. It is the way the law was intended to work. In DDAL vs. Veneman (2003), the case in which the Doris Day Animal League sued the USDA to try to make them inspect retail breeders (home, hobby, show breeders), the judge gave a clear ruling that small breeders were not the same as pet stores and did not have to be regulated or inspected as such. HSUS has been trying to change the law through PAWS and PUPS ever since that time.

These small hobby breeders and others who sell puppies and dogs by retail means were not meant to be regulated in the same manner as large commercial breeders. But that’s what PUPS would do.

It is up to the buyer, not to the government, to check out the person who sells a puppy. Otherwise, all of us who breed dogs are going to have the USDA visiting our homes to see how we keep and raise our puppies.

Now, it’s true, as the editorial mentions, that many people don’t like the idea of “regulation,” but in this case regulation cuts right to the core of everyone who breeds and shows dogs. If PUPS becomes law it would cripple breeders who show, breed dogs for performance, and who breed quality companion dogs. We would be required to meet the same USDA standards that are in place for large commercial breeders, even though we raise puppies in our homes. Most of us could not do this and the result would be the end of countless serious breeding programs in the show world, along with the end of precious bloodlines and, in some cases, the end of breeds.

The AKC sees this, too. On January 26, 2012 they sent a letter to members of Congress from Dennis Sprung with their concerns about PUPS. Among other things it says:

“The AKC does not oppose the concept of regulating high volume breeder retailers but we believe that the definitions proposed in this bill are misleading, overly broad, and potentially damaging to responsible breeders who individually maintain and breed only a few dogs in their homes.

“Although PUPS was designed to regulate internet sales of puppies, it would require anyone who owns or co-owns even a few female dogs that produce 50 or more puppies offered for sale in a year to be regulated under existing USDA dog "dealer" regulations. These regulations are designed for high-volume commercial kennels that produce puppies for wholesale, and require a USDA commercial license, maintenance of specified commercial kennel engineering standards and regular inspections. They are not appropriate for small breeders who may keep only a few dogs in their homes.”

In short, AKC opposes PUPS as it is written and asked members of Congress to withhold their support.

As it is written, PUPS would also regulate anyone who sells these puppies by any means, not just over the Internet. It specifically includes anyone who “sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper),” so it does not just intend to regulate people who sell over the Internet.

I doubt I have to mention how many show breeders have web sites or sell puppies online. You would also fall under this bill for Internet regulation of puppy sales.

PUPS is a very dangerous bill that will harm all of us who breed and show dogs. If you haven’t contacted your legislators to ask them to withhold support for PUPS, you can contact them by visiting this site: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

Here is some more information about PUPS:

WHAT PUPS DOES:

• Abandons traditional determination between wholesale and retail---so that

USDA can regulate home/hobby breeders who don't sell to pet stores.

• Begins USDA regulation of anyone (with 1 intact female dog over 4 months of

age) who sells, places, or adopts out more than 50 dogs in a year ... to start.

Could easily be amended down to 10 ... to 2.

• Takes away your right to privacy in your own home. USDA or their contractors

can without notice enter your home and inspect it if they SUSPECT you might

meet criteria for regulation.

• Over-regulates responsible home breeders out of existence. Mandates non-

porous floors, kennel sizes, floor drains, and pages of requirements impossible

for most home breeders to follow.

• Forces shelters, and home/hobby breeders to redesign their current facilities in

order to meet federal standards.

• Establishes government controlled exercise standards that are not scientifically

proven.

• Sets precedent with exercise standards for future rigid socialization and

breeding standards that would remove owner’s flexibility to use professional

judgment based on breed and purpose.

• Reduces the ability of the American public to obtain healthy privately bred or

rescue dogs of their choosing.

• Places an unfunded mandate on Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) and overextends their enforcement ability.

• Fails to exempt sportsmen, sporting dog trainers, and hunting clubs from being

regulated alongside in-home sellers.

• Adds more federal oversight and regulation into Americans’ daily lives.

Jerry Brown - Still Crazy After All These Years

You are known by the company you keep.

SB 917, the bill that would criminalize someone who would sell or give away kittens or puppies at the local market, was signed into law today by Governor Brown. The criminal animal cruelty statute now will include public sales of animals, making sales a misdemeanor offense right up there in the same league with beating, maiming, and torturing.

Sadly, this means that people will be afraid to place animals at all, and instead of animals finding homes, more dogs and cats will become homeless, to starve or be hit by a car; or, they might end up in the local shelter where they will add to the death toll. The good Samaritan who attempts to find homes for the litter of kittens under his porch would end up with a criminal record. Nice, huh?

One would think that a former Attorney General for the state would see this bill for what it is....a mockery of justice. We've got nothing more important to do than criminalize more and more people? The courts aren't crowded enough? Perhaps Brown views more criminals and potential criminals as job security for government workers. We'll have a fine time rounding everybody up and punishing them. And get paid for it, too!

Good ol' "Governor Moonbeam" Brown....wiser? Nah, just older. 

The South Responds

The article below originally appeared in the May 27, 2011 issue of Dog News. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

The South Responds

Carlotta Cooper

I was very happy to see Matt Stander writing about “The Alabama Effect” in the May 13 issue of DOG NEWS. However, as a daughter of the South, I have a slightly different take on the situation.

I think that unless you live in the South, or perhaps unless you were born and raised here, you may not be sensitive to the disdain that comes from some of our northern friends. It applies even to the way we in the South treat our dogs. Just in the last month I’ve been told on e-mail lists and Facebook that people in the South do not give their dogs heartworm medicine and that people in the South have “an attitude of casual cruelty toward animals.” I have a suspicion that there are probably people in the north who think we are all barefoot and toothless, too. (I assure you, I have lots of shoes and all my teeth.)

I don’t know what to do about some of these stereotypes, but most people in the South take very good care of their dogs. Your dog breeder friends treat their dogs the same way the rest of you do. Puppy buyers are likely to raise and love puppies the same way as people anywhere else in the country. And cruelty is not confined to any one region of the country.

Per “The Alabama Effect,” I personally despise these northern shelters, along with the ASPCA, which have been coming down to the South to pluck dogs from shelters and even out of people’s yards in the wake of devastating tornadoes and now flooding. They claim to be saving animals but what they are really doing is making sure that the owners of these animals will never be able to be reunited with their pets.

For someone who has lost their home in a tornado, who may have family members who are injured or dead, and their dog is missing, they may be hoping that someone has kindly found the dog and taken him to their local shelter. They have no idea that there is a “dog relocation program” in place to take their poor dog off to a state a thousand miles away and that they will never have a chance to see their dog again. It seems horrible to me that these animals are being whisked away before their owners even have a chance to get their lives back together and start searching for them. These dogs are not ordinary stray dogs or unwanted dogs. These dogs are homeless due to disasters and they should not be taken out of their states.

Yet, these shelters in northern states, and elsewhere (there are some midwestern and other states involved now, too), are taking the dogs and putting them up for adoption! They are making money from the tragedies that have befallen other human beings by selling their dogs. I honestly can’t think of a much lower thing to do than that. And they are doing all this in the name of “saving the dogs.” Saving them from being found by their owners? Saving them from going home? They have taken money-making and taking dogs from their owners to new depths.

My heart really goes out to the owners of these lost dogs who will never be able to find them.

So, I do agree with a great deal in “The Alabama Effect,” but for me the onus is on these shelters which have taken the dogs. But I suppose it takes both shelters on the giving and receiving end to make this terrible system work and it should be shut down. What began as a good idea to send shelter animals where they could be adopted has now become a big-time money-making business for shelters in which animals are being taken away from owners who want their pets back. Last time I checked, shelters were not supposed to be in the business of stealing animals from people or selling them like pet stores. What’s more, these shelters are touting these dogs as “Tornado Dogs!” as a selling point! They’re trying to make people feel sorry for the dogs in order to get them adopted. How about the poor families who are looking for their pets? Doesn’t anyone feel sorry for them?

Please tell your friends to avoid shelters which engage in these practices. If they are taking animals from areas that have been hit by tornadoes and flooding, there are most likely owners who don’t know where their dogs are. Tell those shelters that people want their pets back. The least they can do is post pictures of the animals they have taken so owners can search for their pets online. Some shelters which have taken dogs have refused to do even that and they are refusing to answer anymore questions about the dogs they have taken.

And, please remember that the South is part of the United States. There are cultural differences here but we do love dogs very much. Rednecks can be nice people, too. Hunters love dogs. Good ol’ boys love dogs. If you want to find people who have a problem with dogs in the South, it’s likely to be someone’s stately grandmother who hates dirt and hair, but she would never hurt an animal.

When you’re posting on e-mail lists and other places, you might try to remember that about half the people reading your messages are from the South and they might be offended when you make stupid comments about people from the South not taking care of their dogs. I spend a lot of money every year on heartworm medicine, flea and tick prevention, vaccinations, and all the rest, for my five dogs, so such comments really don’t go down well. And everyone I know does the same for their dogs. We fought this war once so let’s not fight it again over dog care.

A Nation of Pet Lovers Loses Its Way

This article originally appeared in the April 22, 2011 issue of Dog News. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

A Nation of Pet Lovers Loses Its Way

Carlotta Cooper

I’ve been an anglophile most of my life. I grew up loving all thing British, or English, from the language to the history of the British Isles. I spent some time in the country when I was in school. Inevitably, I segued into animals that were developed in Britain. I enjoyed the time I spent in Britain and the people I met were universally pleasant, though I do recall a few cab drivers with some rather colorful language.

All that was a few years ago. Maybe things change. That was before I became aware of the animal rights movement and the RSPCA.

The RSPCA has a reputation in Great Britain similar to that of HSUS in this country and is known for seizing pets and other animals unreasonably, based on cases highlighted in the media. If you google “RSPCA seizes pets” you will find hundreds of such stories, including stories about the RSPCA seizing overweight pets from their owners. They are also on record in the infamous documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed with comments about purebred dogs such as then Chief Vet Mark Evans calling dog shows “a parade of mutants.” Evans is quoted extensively in the program.

In fact, the RSPCA received so much attention for their role in Pedigree Dogs Exposed that they had to set up Question & Answer pages for the public. On these pages you can find such comments about purebred dogs as these:

—The RSPCA is extremely concerned about the unacceptably high levels of

disability, deformity and disease affecting pedigree dogs.

— Hundreds of thousands of dogs are vulnerable to unnecessary illness, pain and

disability or behavioural problems because they’re bred primarily for how they

look rather than with health, welfare and temperament in mind...

—We believe that both the selective breeding of dogs primarily for appearance and

the intensive breeding of closely related dogs for anything other than

scientifically proven welfare reasons is morally unjustifiable...

—When choosing which animals to breed from, there’s often no merit attached to

an animal’s health, welfare or temperament - and often the attributes rated most

highly can result in disability or illness...

— Pedigree dog owners that show their dogs obviously want their animals to do

well at shows and/or produce popular offspring. So the dogs with the most

‘desirable’ attributes (i.e. those that most closely match the relevant breed

standard) are bred from most frequently. The selected features may easily

become exaggerated, causing dogs to suffer more health and welfare problems

and a reduced quality of life...

I think the impression left on the reader is that people who breed and show dogs only care for a dog’s appearance and give little thought to the dog’s health or temperament. There is certainly the impression given, in my opinion, that massive numbers of purebred dogs (or “pedigree dogs,” as they are called in Britain) are sick and deformed.

The RSPCA also commissioned a 76-page study which denigrated The Kennel Club in Britain and the breeding practices of pedigree dog breeders. “The Kennel Club, breed societies, and the pedigree dog showing community have formally endorsed the inbreeding of dogs,” it said. This was stated despite the fact that it was estimated that less than 1 percent of dogs registered with The Kennel Club were the result of first degree matings. “Much of the suffering which some pedigree dogs endure is unnecessary and a substantial part could be avoided with revised practices.”

Some of the suggestions that came out of the report included:

— The banning of first degree and second degree matings (e.g., parent and offspring, siblings, grandparent and offspring or half-siblings).

—Open studbooks.

—Conducting a full ethical review of the health and welfare of current breeds. This could inform decisions, such as to enforce rapid out-crossing or (as suggested by some), in extreme cases even to phase out some breeds.

—Make registration of pedigree dogs conditional upon both parents undergoing compulsory screening tests for prioritised disorders.

—Training and accreditation of judges to prioritise health, welfare and behaviour in the show ring.

—Development of schemes for calculating Estimated Breeding Values (EBVs) for disorders influenced by genetic factors. The EBV of an animal for any trait predicts the average performance of its offspring for that trait.

The RSPCA isn’t an organization concerned with helping sad puppies and kittens. It’s an animal rights group of exactly the same ilk as HSUS, with a similar agenda and the same attitude toward dog breeders and purebred dogs.

I think it’s hard to judge just how the British dog-owning public feels about pets and pedigree dogs these days. Pedigree Dogs Exposed seems to have certainly had a very negative effect on the perception of purebred dogs and dog breeders. A list member of the Pet-Law e-mail group looked up the following comments following stories about dog shows or dog breeding in the British popular press, but comments like these are easy to find on British web sites:

*Dog show-breeding stinks. The people who breed these dogs don't give a toss for their animals' welfare, no matter what they say.

*The people who breed those dysfunctional monstrosities ought to be jailed.

*There's only one breed: DOGS (read: cross-breeds, mongrels). Those which are given the label "breeds" are inbred mutants (sic).

*These kennel clubs are disgusting. The poor creatures are just status symbols for the owners and nothing else; owners who are usually loners - childless, anti-social, eccentric, vain, pompous creeps who are completely ignorant of biology.

-------

And this one:

*Those dog breeders should be ABSOLUTELY ashamed of themselves!!!!!!!

*Crufts breeders can be disgusted all they like, the reality is the rest of the rational thinking public is disgusted with them for breeding dogs with deformities and health problems!

*These people are beneath contempt

*Then quite simply these people are not dog lovers, if they would rather have a sick and deformed dog than a healthy dog. I used to want to go to crufts as a child, as a dog lover, now i wouldnt touch the place.

*What utter morons these dog breeders are, more concerned with "correctness" than the welfare of the dogs they breed as usual.

*Some of these dog breeders really sound like a bunch of Nazis !!! Try to imagine if the same practices were applied to creating genetically pure breeds of humans . . . oh wait, that did happen, in WW2 by . . . the Nazis !!!

As mentioned, comments like these are by no means rare following stories about dog shows or dog breeders or breeding in Britain. There are virulent attacks online about pedigree dogs now, since the film Pedigree Dogs Exposed. Just how common this feeling was prior to the documentary, I don’t know, but Britain does not seem to be a friendly place for dog breeding these days. It’s possible this is a very vocal minority, but there are few people writing in defense of dog breeders or pedigree dogs, at least online.

As if this kind of bashing weren’t enough, it’s not unusual to see headlines like this one in the popular British press: “Nation of animal lovers? Study shows 10m pets suffer mental or physical stress.” Is that really possible, you may ask? Out of a nation with approximately eight million dogs, and eight million cats according to the Pet Food Manufacturers Association in Britain, this study claims that 10 million of these pets are suffering mental or physical stress? Of course, this study, conducted by the PDSA (Never heard of it? Apparently it stands for pets in need of vets, but I can’t figure out the acronym), claims far higher numbers for cats, and includes rabbits in the study. They also sell pet insurance. I’m not quite sure how they are a charity. They take people to task if they don’t feed a commercial dog food; and they are very unhappy if animals are left alone for more than four (yes 4) hours per day. I’m not sure how people are supposed to leave the home and work to buy pet food. They claim that rabbits are “neglected” and forced to live on their own, which leads to boredom and stress. In short, they have their ideas about how pets should be treated, and they want to bash millions of pet owners who have different ideas.

This sort of sensational report is common in Britain and it makes front page news. All too often it seems to lead to changes in the way people actually think about animals and treat them. It can even lead to legislative changes — all based on ideas that are pulled out of the air, with absolutely no science or experience to back them up. There can even be misstatements of facts in these reports, such as the disagreement about the pet population numbers above.

Could it possibly be that the RSPCA, groups like PDSA, and others are following in the footsteps of Jemima Harrison and Pedigree Dogs Exposed? They have seen that the more they can rile the British public about animals, the more they may be able to cash in on the public’s concern for animals? I think it’s true that the British are great animal lovers. It’s just a shame that they have been led so far astray that so many of them no longer recognize when they are being taken for a ride. They think dog breeders are their enemy, and pedigree dogs are mutants. They take advice about caring for pets from organizations like the RSPCA which seizes pets, and the PDSA which has very suspect ideas about how animals should be treated. Whatever happened to British common sense?