Animal extremists are back, and this time, they are attempting to stamp out the breeding of dogs in the United States with a proposal that would supercharge foreign puppy mills.
The latest assault is legislation they are advancing through allies in the House that they claim will “protect puppies.” It would do the opposite by punishing responsible domestic breeders with new, more burdensome regulations without providing resources to improve breeder education or enforce current laws.
The inevitable result of new regulations, instead of improving the enforcement of existing requirements, means that responsible pet breeders will be curtailed. At the same time, those who disregard current basic standards of care will continue to operate. To meet the always-high demand for dogs as pets, the so-called Puppy Protection Act would incentivize the importation of unhealthy dogs from countries such as China and Turkey. These dogs carry the threat of spreading diseases.
It is a crapshoot whether imported foreign dogs are carrying serious diseases. While importation laws require all dogs to have a health certificate, foreign paperwork is commonly invalid or forged, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dogs from other countries are not subject to the same health and welfare requirements required by the Animal Welfare Act and regularly arrive in the United States with serious and infectious canine diseases.
There is good reason Congress let the House measure die in previous sessions. In addition to its damaging effect on domestic breeding and encouraging importation of potentially sick animals, it’s a bad law based on bad science.
Guidelines in the Puppy Protection Act would create arbitrary, one-size-fits-all requirements for dog breeding even though dogs are the most diverse species of land mammal.
Some examples include:
—Unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area. Such a mandate does not take into account canine behavior and biology. Some dogs don’t get along. Some might be in heat. Some yards might not be large enough to accommodate the mandate. Small dogs can be prey to large birds and other predators. “Unfettered” can be irresponsible.
—Mandating two meals daily. A federal law mandating two meals a day, instead of existing Animal Welfare Act requirements for sufficient and appropriate food, doesn’t advance the well-being of dogs, especially when not all dogs have the same food requirements. This bill replaces regulations that allow for this flexibility.
—Flooring. The proposed legislation would mandate solid flooring only. This ignores the science that other types of structurally solid flooring may be better for animals. Research by Purdue University has found that dogs benefit from multiple types of flooring. It recognizes the health and sanitation benefits of high-quality engineered slatted or perforated flooring that protects dogs’ feet.
—Temperatures. A prohibition of temperatures below 45 degrees or above 85 degrees makes sense for most, but not all, dogs. Northern breeds, such as the Alaskan Malamute or Siberian Husky, prefer and can easily handle temperatures well below freezing. Other dogs, especially newly born puppies, require temperatures significantly higher than 85 degrees. Again, the one-size-fits-all approach makes no sense.
Current law mandates extensive requirements for breeders hugely effective at ensuring animal welfare as the top priority while providing flexibility for breeders depending on the breeds they are raising.
For example, the most recent annual report of the Department of Agriculture’s inspections of the nation’s dog breeders found that 96 percent of licensees and registrants were in substantial compliance with the Animal Welfare Act, the guiding legislation that regulates the treatment of animals. Breeders of dogs for commercial sale provide animals with humane care and treatment that meets government standards, including proper veterinary care, an appropriate diet, clean and structurally sound housing, proper ventilation and sanitation, and protection from extreme weather and temperatures.
Animal extremists don’t like dog breeding. If responsible breeders are regulated out of business, then the only ones left will be irresponsible breeders who ignore the laws. American families will be left with choosing among a rescue dog whose temperament, characteristics and provenance are suspect, patronizing an illicit dog breeder, and/or boosting the fortunes of foreign puppy mills.
The proposed measure is another attempt to achieve a radical and deeply unpopular outcome that deprives Americans of one of life’s pleasures — a loving pet of their choice.