| The Future of Dogs | |
|
The Importance of Home Breeding |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grooming Aprons and Towels embroidered with 'Fight Anti-Pet Legislation. It Affects Us All" |
|
HOW ANIMAL RIGHTS LAWS WORK Nine out of ten new laws relating to pets are actually anti-pet in purpose. However, since ‘anti-pet' wouldn't sell, the real purpose is never put on the label. Pet laws must be studied to figure out what they will really do. The true purpose will be found among what would ordinarily be considered the 'unintended consequences' and is often the reverse of what we're told. The 'law of unintended consequences' is familiar in lawmaking. Unlimited welfare benefits seemed like a way to lift people out of poverty but the long-term effect was to build a cycle of dependence in which successive generations grew up and choose to 'get a check' rather than building the skills needed for adult independence. Laws passed with only the best of intentions thus caused the numbers of the poor to grow, decade by decade.
The difference is that for AR laws, the unintended consequences are the plan. Everything else is just brightly colored wrapping paper, intended to build support and get the law passed. This tactic has been so well polished that you will find respected and well intended community leaders backing even the worst anti-pet bills. When animal rights laws are claimed to be needed to prevent tragedy – 'pit bull' bans, extremely punitive dangerous dog laws, sometimes anti-tethering laws – you will often find the mother or other close relative of someone badly hurt or killed by a dog as a figurehead for the effort to pass the law. These individuals are sincere and you cannot blame them for trying to prevent a repetition. The tactic is effective because it is hard to say "Mrs. Smith, I'm very sorry about Tommy but you don't have a clue what you're talking about." But these poor people are twice victimized – the second time, by an animal rights movement that is cynically using them to put a human face on an anti-human and inhumane campaign. A few examples of 'what you see and what you get' 1. 'Mandatory spay neuter (MSN) laws' requiring all dogs to be spayed or neutered, generally with an expensive 'intact animal' licenses offered under tight restrictions, are promoted as a way to reduce 'pet overpopulation.' This seems logical: If there are no excess intact animals, then unwanted births can't happen.
But it doesn't work that way. These laws cannot be enforced -- you can't tell if a dog is spayed or neutered (S/N) at a glance (for females, you may not even be able to locate the scar) and going door to door checking for vet certificates is far too expensive. The first result is that a few dogs are spayed/neutered, a few more are given up, some dogs are abandoned (shelter intakes always rise for a couple of years where these laws are passed) and most dogs are unchanged but owners of the intact ones are now in violation. The owners who either S/N or give up their dogs are the responsible ones: most of them were already confining their animals. The owners who were allowing animals to roam are least likely to have them altered.
These laws have no favorable effect on pet populations: While animal rightists cite San Mateo County, California (where MSN was passed in the early 1990's) as a great success, an honest study of the numbers shows that the law didn't work at all. And it has been the same in every other jurisdiction: Montgomery County, MD, passed MSN in the 1990's but repealed it just a few years later when a watchdog agency concluded that it had only bad effects. However 'ineffective' is just the beginning. The restrictions on 'intact animal' and 'breeder' licenses are always set up to make carefully planned multi-year breeding programs impossible. Good breeders stop, move away, or try to hide, selling their dogs only out of the area. The supply of dogs from people who breed for health and happiness, match puppies to families, help if there are problems, and take them back if it doesn't work, vanishes. To get a dog license you have to say if the dog is S/N or not. People who are in violation of an MSN law stop getting licenses. Revenues decline and because licensing is the point at which rabies vaccinations are followed up, so does this important public health measure. Wait – there's even more. Since they generally point to a violation of the law, unplanned puppies are now effectively contraband. They may be abandoned or dumped – not exactly a humane outcome. 'Oops' litters supply around half of all American dogs: Causing them to be destroyed may create a shortage that draws hidden breeding and fleamarket imports from outlying areas. The poster child for MSN is Southern California where millions of people now live under these laws and sure enough, increasing numbers of puppies are being brought in from Mexico, often using the same smuggling schemes as for drugs.
Even the basic idea – that restricting dog births will reduce numbers entering shelters – is wrong in most areas. America no longer has a general dog 'overpopulation' (too many puppies) problem. Except in far out (mostly southern) rural areas, places with excessive euthanasia rates have an excess of adult dogs. That's a different problem, one that must be addressed in other ways. To the extent that MSN has any effect at all, it simply lowers dog quality, thus making the adult dog retention problem worse. MSN laws are a bomb, tossed in the middle of the American 'dog supply system.' But the unintended consequences are the plan. These laws are often supported by the well-intended but they are written by people who know exactly how they will work. |