A story posted on the Lincoln Tribune website on Tuesday suggests breeders in North Carolina are worried about the results of the Missouri referendum known as Prop B. Why? For one thing, North Carolina citizens don’t have the right to petition for a ballot measure – unfortunately.
And why should good breeders be worried about standards they should already meet and in so many cases do meet or exceed. NC Senate Bill 460, which earlier this year stalled in committee, was somewhat less stringent than Prop B in Missouri.
One of the big points of contention with Prop B was the 50-dog limit for breeders. SB 460 in NC did not include a limit on the number of breeding dogs, yet it still got much opposition from particular farming and breeding groups, such as the American Kennel Club.
So it’s not really all about the number of dogs for the opposition. It’s about not wanting regulations on the care of the dogs, even when it’s something as basic as minimal veterinary care or regular access to exercise outdoors and clean food and water – and cages at least large enough to allow the dogs to move around a little bit.
Sadly, the Editor’s Note at the bottom of the Lincoln Tribune story noted the following -
“” This article originally listed American Veterinary Medical Association as opposed to Senate Bill 460. A representative contacted the Tribune and said that this was not the case and that the group typically does not take a stance on issues on the state level. The story should have read that the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Association was opposed to the bill. “”
The North Carolina Veterinary Medical Association opposed the basic and minimal standards of care for dogs included in SB 460. This a veterinary medical association that is suppose to promote humane care and health standards for animals. It is stunning and nothing less than sad that this organization would take such a stand against the humane treatment of dogs.
The story also listed other groups opposed to SB 460 – the North Carolina Sporting Dog Association, the Animal Agriculture Alliance, the National Animal Interest Alliance and the North Carolina Agribusiness Council.
Lisa Peterson, director of communications for the American Kennel Club was interviewed for the article.
“Nor are more regulations likely to prevent people from abusing animals who aren’t breeding them for sale,” Peterson said, but these laws do hurt law-abiding individuals and businesses economically, infringe on property rights, and limit consumer choices.
Wrong, wrong and wrong! The regulations are specifically targeting breeders who are selling dogs. Peterson’s first point here is like suggesting we shouldn’t have restaurant grades because it wouldn’t stop people from having dirty kitchens in their homes.
And the proposed regulation in North Carolina and Missouri would not hurt breeders who are caring properly for their dogs. And the property rights line is lame at best. No one is talking about taking away your “property” – other than in cases when the breeder is engaged in practices that are cruel or neglectful.
And “consumer choices” – Is she kidding us? Where did she pull that one from? I guess to Peterson, closing down filthy restaurants is limiting “consumer choices.” Some people might want to eat in rat-infested diners or buy their puppies from a breeder who cages the parent dogs encased in their own feces.
How can one person, in one paragraph, get it so wrong so many times?