Mid summer legislative issues affecting Maine hunting and sporting dog owners are a little on the quiet side. Although there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes there isn't much to share here. It seems like it would be a good time to offer this excerpt from a published article I wrote for the American Brittany Club after attending the 2008 National Animal Interest Alliance Conference as representatative for the ABC:
"...All responsible animal owners must recognize, be concerned with, and remain current about the ongoing, aggressive animal rights movement. It is extremely important to understand the meaning behind particular words used when ‘animal rights’ and/or ‘animal welfare’ is discussed. Often used interchangeably, these terms can be poles apart.
For our purposes here, “animal rights” typically is a term used to describe a political, radical movement opposing the use of ALL animals for ANY purpose. Although the AR (animal rights) movement attempts to lower the status of human beings to the same level of animals by giving “rights” to animals, it is an extreme movement with an ulterior motive, “the extinction of domestic animals.”
The AR movement is active in each state, persuading legislators to create new animal welfare laws and ordinances, often empowering local, state and federal government to intrude into the lives of responsible animal owners. Although states already have existing animal welfare laws in place, many of the new laws are invasive and often dictate to responsible animal owners the manner in which they MUST care for the animals they own or that are in their care.
The term “Animal Welfare” most often clarifies for citizens the right to provide responsible care for an animal humanely and supports existing animal welfare laws. Primarily, animal welfare preserves the constitutional rights of the American citizen to own an animal and to make responsible decisions for their proper care and well-being without local, state, or federal intervention. In general, advocates of animal welfare know laws preventing cruelty, abuse, or neglect of animals are absolutely necessary and all want to see animals treated humanely. On the other hand, animal welfare advocates strongly oppose the progression of increasingly restrictive laws for animal owners:
- Rabies vaccine requirements/reported to the State
- Mandated age of rabies vaccine
- Basic Leash Laws
- Anti-Cruelty Laws
- Zoning/Nuisance Ordinances
- Breeding Permits
- Ownership limits
- Guardianship vs. Ownership
- Consumer protection/animal ‘lemon laws’
- Breed Specific Laws/Dangerous Dog ordinances
- Anti-tethering, anti-crating
- Prohibition of dogs left in cars, etc.
- Anti-breeding laws
- Mandatory spay and neuter laws
- Regulated/specific amounts of daily exercise
- Size of kennels, materials used in construction
- State mandated veterinary care
The political arm of the Animal Rights agenda is extending itself state by state. New vague ‘concept’ drafts, proposals, ordinances etc. are introduced with alarming frequency. Even more alarming is the speed in which the new laws become effective. Unaware citizens who are responsible animal owners suddenly find they are not in compliance with these laws. In many cases, people are not even aware of them.
For example, John Q. Public, wishing to be a law abiding citizen will submit to a unwarranted “inspection” of his home and property by a government official. Based on how the “official” interprets the [hypothetical] new law, John Q. Public is at risk of his animals being seized as a result of the ‘inspection.’ The new law includes regulating the type of water bucket, size and materials of leash/collar to be used, and which materials are permissible to use in constructing a dog house/kennel. The state official discovers the responsible dog owner has not cared for his animals in the manner in which the new law/ordinance dictates. The owner is charged with animal abuse and neglect. His dogs are removed from his property.
Responsible dog owners often are unaware the Animal Rights movement would like to stop the breeding of purebred dogs. ALL BREEDING. One group promotes ‘anti breeding workshops.’ Their goal is for the public to look at breeding dogs in the same way they compare drunk driving and smoking. An extreme analogy, but AR extremists are entrenched in the political process and are often well established with state officials, thus appearing as credible sources.
Make no mistake, as the emphasis to eliminate breeding and animal ownership continues, division among breeders, shelters, rescue groups, local humane societies, dog fanciers, sportsmen, etc. (those who should be united) will intensify. The AR movement has already had great success. Likewise, hearts of many dog owners appear full of indifference and lack of concern. This obvious apathy must be overcome, but how? Animal owners face a “clear and present danger” far greater than the threat of losing the right to own and care for animals. Although a very real threat, it is simply a poster child for the complete AR agenda. A sense of alarm is felt within the hearts of those who understand the reality of what lies ahead. The AR movement cannot be overpowered unless animal owners unite to face the danger head on, draw a line in the sand declaring “not one step further.”
It begins as each person becomes familiar with existing animal welfare laws in their state of residence. The learning experience continues by knowing what new concepts and amendments are under consideration for introduction to the state legislature. Each state legislature has a governmental website with a link on it that can be used to monitor upcoming legislation. By quickly searching for key words access is easily gained to state documents etc. pertaining to issues of concern to responsible animal owners. Individuals can gather information for themselves. They can then disseminate information to other interested parties.
Local and regional dog clubs exist within most states with a wide and diverse membership. Interests range from hunting, agility, field trials, obedience, sledding, tracking, showing, etc. In many states a Federation of Dog Clubs work together to communicate information. This is a great place to give and receive information. The AKC website lists the contact information for these state Federations of Dog Clubs. Likewise breed clubs often work together to heighten awareness among members who may be oblivious to the severity of the AR movement. I highly recommend spending time on the Sportsmens and Animal Owners Alliance (SAOVA) website and their blog for extremely accurate and current information.
It is important to know how local, state, and federal representatives and senators stand on animal rights vs. animal welfare issues as defined here, and to be accountable to better educate them. Sometimes, because they have only heard one side, well intentioned legislators unknowingly support a bill that will hurt responsible animal owners. Most often, legislators are easily accessible, and want to hear from their constituents. The true “experts” are owners with years of experience and legislators will view them as credible resources with factual information.
In addition to legislators, the local media can benefit from factual data based on our real life experiences. Opinion Educational (op-ed) pieces can be submitted along with Letters to the Editor relative to these issues. Learn the ins and outs, and successful methods of getting something written or published. Contact reporters personally and invite them to sit down with you and discuss your reasonable concerns. As we begin to be taken seriously, it is important to remember not to discredit ourselves by demonizing the enemy publicly.
Responsible animal owners can learn to promote the message of animal welfare to it’s essence, to it’s most basic form in a credible, professional, respectful manner. While we absolutely do care deeply about the issues of animal welfare we must refuse to join in with the radical extremism of animal rights while explaining the reasons for our opposition to specific legislation articulately. It is possible to present factual information about the bond between humans and animals, to appeal to others through a sincere love and concern of the animals we own and use in our lives. We already KNOW how to care for animals and will always seek to improve upon their welfare. But without the state intervention that ARA so desperately ask for.
The animal rights movement uses emotionalism and sensationalism to promote their agenda, to influence media, legislators, and others, and that speaks for itself. Everyone agrees and accepts without hesitation real animal cruelty and abuse exists but it will never be eradicated by following the AR agenda.
This is a new and proactive era for animal welfare advocates. A positive and time honored message about the benefits and experiences of owning animals is a reality. Many well-defined and documented facts exist to support our concerns, which are no longer noise in the background, easily ignored or dismissed as irrational. Instead, voices rise up clearly as voices of logic, common sense, and unity.
From Maine to California, numbers grow as hundreds of responsible animal owners embrace once again the authenticity of the unique bond that has always existed between people and the animals they love. In most cases, the very best care is already afforded them. It is time all owners, breeders, rescue groups, fanciers, etc. unite together on this bandwagon regardless of our differences. No more compromises..."
That's all folks! Errr... no, not quite...
I have been thinking about some of the words used when discussing animals now, specifically dogs. I'll call them 'new age' terms, words that are acceptable and 'politically correct.' I think they are supposed to give people a warm and fuzzy feeling but it doesn't have that affect upon me at all. As a matter of fact I just came across a great opinion article that is wonderfully researched written by Gail Fisher about the dangers of being politically correct and literally stressing the fact that dog owners and dog trainers must not buy into all this new terminology. She writes and I quote "If we buy into “guardianship” because “what difference does it make,” we are supporting our own demise and are in danger of losing the very ability to have and keep pets. Which bring me to the second prong of the animal rights movement—the law. Changing the word from “owner” to “guardian,” “custodian,” “keeper” or any other term does not convey the constitutionally protected rights of “ownership.” Sitting still for such a change is short-sighted and dangerous."
But that's just one of many changes. Consider other terms you probably use now without giving it a second thought. Words that offer a warm and fuzzy feel, words that are most definitely 'politically correct'! Has anyone noticed that we are no longer using the word "PET" anymore? Does anyone even care? Well, here is a very interesting quote which I discovered. We can assume that given the influence [sic] that HSUS has that the philosophy here actually contributed somehow to the change from pet to companion. "Michael W. Fox, vice-president of the Humane Society, said that, "to call an animal with whom you share your life a 'pet,' is reminiscent of men's magazines where you (a figure of speech, don't take it personally) have the Pet of the Month." It is supposed that the continued use of the word "pet" to designate dogs or cats threatens to reduce their level of respect to the current status of twentieth century North American women. Now that's radical." ~The McGill Red Herring "
I use the word "companion" all the time! My husband John and I are breeders of 'companion hunting dogs' and I never gave that term much thought. I like using that word. But have I too been so conditioned to think that it is somehow wrong to say we breed Brittanys for bird hunting purposes who are also family pets? Because that's what we do. (I am in danger of going off on a tangent here, something I've not done for quite awhile. I am going to fight the urge to share details behind the frustration I felt while John and I attended a press conference with Maines Attorney General and a State Senator who put the word puppy mill - which is NOT not a legal term and has no clear definition - and dog breeder in the same sentence as if to indicate they are one in the same.) I even hesitate to use the word 'breeder' without the popular and necessary prefix 'responsible' in front of it. In fact anyone who BUYS a Brittany puppy from us must be a 'responsible' dog owner. But I digress, or do I?
BUYING vs ADOPTING
It seems like BUYING a dog is considered as something shameful. People don't even want to admit they BOUGHT a dog - let alone they BOUGHT it from a BREEDER!! Instead everyone wants to say they have adopted their dog. But in reality these days, ADOPTING has become big business. And ironically, ADOPTIONS occur at PET STORES! The same pet stores that sign the HSUS pledge that they will not sell puppies. Hmmm... Mobile adoption centers are set up at many pet stores. Week after week, everywhere...
And herein lies a very 'elementary' conclusion:
- Adopting is in - Buying is out
- Breeders are out - Shelters/Rescues are in
- Companion is in - Pet is Out
Permission is granted by Maine Hunting & Sporting Dog Owners to freely distribute or repost this article if done so in it's entirety provided credit is given to Maine-HSDO and to Ann Short, Author.
