The purebred dog community tends to focus on supposed pressing issues such as group realignment, the judging approval process, or candidates for the four AKC Board positions to be elected at the March 2009 Delegates meeting. Individual exhibitors fret whether their show entries were received prior to the entry deadline and if the major in bitches will hold at the shows this weekend. Club show committees agonize over the choice of sterling silver or crystal for Group trophies for their annual shows. What is lost in the concentration on these seemingly important issues is the one prevailing issue that must rightfully be the concern of every purebred dog owner and breeder, the right to own and breed dogs responsibly. If we lose the right to keep dogs, then trophies and judges selection committee decisions and the politics of AKC Board elections become superfluous.
The purebred dog fancy must understand that for all of our self interest in our narrow range of activities, we are embedded within a much larger community of companion animal owners. We tend not to recognize the animal-related issues faced by elected officials because we view everything through the “lens” of responsible dog owners. We do everything right in the way we own, keep and breed our dogs, so why the spate of negative legislation related to dog ownership? What has to be recognized is that there exist legitimate public policy concerns related to pet ownership that must rightfully be addressed by elected officials. Responsible purebred dog owners are doomed to continually fight negative canine legislation unless and until we acknowledge that problems related to dog ownership prevail in our communities and we must commit to work collectively with elected officials to address these problems.
Our fascination with the “animal rights movement” as the source of all threats to dog ownership sometimes impedes our ability to establish relationships with elected officials to address issues related to irresponsible dog ownership. The existence of an ideologically motivated and well-funded animal rights movement is well documented and constitutes a very real threat to animal ownership. That said, the majority of dog-related legislation is not forwarded to serve an animal rights agenda but is instead promulgated to deal with problems caused by irresponsible dog owners.
Leash laws are necessary because some individuals refuse to confine their dogs and allow their dogs to roam at large. If a neighbor has a dog that barks incessantly an individual most assuredly might appear before the city council or the county commission demanding that a nuisance ordinance be adopted to restore tranquility in the neighborhood. Animal cruelty legislation is in place in all fifty states because some individuals treat animals inhumanely and maintain animals in substandard conditions. Breed specific ban or restriction ordinances are the most frequently introduced negative canine legislation initiatives in the United States and these ordinances are almost always the result of a dog attack or severe mauling in a community. Breed specific legislation is wrong-headed and must be opposed whenever introduced but the purebred dog community must concurrently support well-written dangerous dog legislation to deal with problem dogs, regardless of breed. Community safety is paramount; we should all be able to walk the streets of our community without the threat of dog attack.
All of the above cited legislative initiatives stem from the prevailing problem faced by elected officials in seeking to assure quality of life in their communities, the irresponsible dog owner. I have been criticized for using the term “irresponsible dog owner,” with the view that such terminology only feeds and supports the position of the animal rights movement. My response to such an allegation is that most of the legislative battles responsible dog owners have to contest are caused by the actions of irresponsible dog owners. We must fight to protect the right to own and breed dogs responsibly and must consider each piece of proposed legislation to assure that right, but we must not concurrently expend our limited political capital with elected officials by seeming to defend the indefensible actions of irresponsible dog owners.
Mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) legislation is the most far-reaching and potentially threatening of legislative initiatives. Everyone in the purebred dog community is aware of California Assembly Bill 1634 introduced in February 2007 and defeated in August 2008. What is likely less well known is that state-level MSN legislation was introduced in New Mexico in 2007 and in Arizona, New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts in 2008. State legislatures in six states across two years considered MSN bills and in each instance MSN was rejected. While state-level MSN has failed, multiple local jurisdictions have adopted MSN ordinances. Mandatory spay/neuter legislation is most assuredly part of the animal rights agenda but the arguments in support of MSN resonate with elected officials because of the number of animal shelter intakes, euthanasia rates and the costs of operating shelters. The reality is that shelter intakes and euthanasia rates have decreased across the past fifteen years in most jurisdictions, but elected officials can succumb to the panacea offered by MSN as a solution to perceived shelter population issues.
Mandatory spay/neuter initiatives allow the purebred dog community to articulate the wrong-headedness of MSN and concurrently demonstrate our commitment to responsible dog ownership and our willingness to engage elected officials in solutions to shelter population issues. Many AKC-affiliated clubs are actively involved with their local shelters by providing funding and volunteers. We must recognize that local governmental entities daily deal with a range of shelter intakes not related to purebred dogs but part of a larger pet population issue, with the potential to impact public policy decisions not favorable to the purebred dog community.
Animal shelter population is a multi-faceted issue with a marked division between dog and cat intakes and the percentage of feral cats within the shelter population. What is obvious from all the available shelter intake data is that purebred dogs remain a very small percentage of intakes at any animal shelter. Purebred dog rescue groups will, if allowed, collect and place any purebred dogs received by a shelter. The purebred dog community must extend our commitment beyond rescue of purebred shelter dogs to include active involvement to address sources of dogs entering shelters.
The American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA) conducts surveys across a range of topics related to pet ownership. Their 2005-2006 survey determined that more than 70% of owned dogs are spayed or neutered. The vast majority of dog owners surveyed decided that spaying or neutering was the right decision for their pet. This decision was completely voluntary, without any mandate from governmental entities. What should be recognized is that this is aggregate-level data combining all segments of society, not separated by socio-economic status. It is logical to conclude that as income and education increases, so does the propensity to spay or neuter a household pet. What remains is the reality that low income families may well have a dog as a pet but their likelihood to spay or neuter would be well below the 70% aggregate level.
Many AKC-affiliated clubs are active participants in issues related to their local shelters. These clubs recognize that shelter intakes of dogs directly relates to the propensity of local elected officials to consider a range of breeding restrictions including intact animal permits, breeders permits and mandatory spay/neuter. In response, many clubs contribute to funding low cost spay/neuter clinics to assist economically-disadvantaged families to spay or neuter their pets. These clubs recognize that what happens at their local shelter can impact public policy decisions. When the purebred dog community is perceived by elected officials as actively involved in shelter issues we gain a “seat at the table” whenever public policy issues related to dog ownership are considered. We gain credibility when we acknowledge pet ownership issues outside our narrow perspective of purebred dog ownership and our club activities.
We can either expend efforts in a completely defensive mode reacting to negative canine legislative issues or we can acknowledge that we are part of a much larger pet ownership community. What happens in that larger pet ownership community directly impacts our right to own and breed dogs responsibly. We can present ourselves and our clubs as responsible dog owners willing to assist elected officials in dealing with the very real public policy decisions related to animals or we can wait and react to negative legislation. The choice is ours and it is a matter of priorities.