Although it might surprise you to hear, I struggle with my own ideas on animal care legislation.  I struggle especially when it comes to the matters of companion animal legislation.  It wounds me to the core to find myself unable to stand shoulder to shoulder with many good people.  Warm-hearted, well-intentioned people who work so hard to provide a safety net for people, from the unfortunate to the financially strapped to the irresponsible, and their animals.  That’s when it struck me that we have been manipulated into a civil war of sorts, and I resent it greatly.  When I say ‘we’,  I mean breeder, rescue, shelter & owner, all of us, especially when it comes to dogs. 

A person I know through my love of dogs put it to me so well yesterday, “There is no other animal on earth with which we have such a unique, almost symbiotic relationship as we do the dog.”  I agree with her completely.   So would the overwhelming majority of  ‘dog people’.  This love, this bond, this tie to the days when our species had only begun to come to awareness of the difference between ourselves and the rest of the animal world, is a precious one.  As we elevate our perception of ourselves and our place in the world, we likewise try to elevate our perception of dogs.  We try and make them closer to us, bestowing them with a complexity of thought, motive and perception that we need for ourselves.   They exist in the Now, something that we find so hard to with that special consciousness that humans developed.  Yet, practically every dog person knows the peace of those moments with their dog where they can just ‘be’.  In many ways, we need dog even more than dog needs us. 

This love, this bond is so easy to use against us.  With love comes the urge to protect; an emotion that overwhelms our critical thinking.  In our emotion we become more animal, we become less human.   We become a mob, a herd, a pack.  In our blind urge to protect that which is precious to us, we can easily destroy the very things that allow us to protect our beloved companions from those who would interfere.  The majority of people on both sides of the ‘Dog Wars’ are in the fight for the same reasons, to protect & preserve that which they believe to be precious. 

How to codify these kinds of perspectives into law without shackling all dog breeders and still meet the human demand for dogs?  Its the line between the philosophical/moral and the legal position that I struggle with.  Where should my beliefs on the what/where/when/how of dog breeding and dog care, or of any animal, affect the rights of another to do so beyond basic humane definitions?  Should my experiences &  limitations restrict another person with different limitations and different experience? 

I ask, for the love of dog, why are those who similarly love dogs following the lead of individuals without such a bond of affection?  In the dividing of the ranks of those who love dogs by those who are not informed by such perspective, the casualties are both the dogs and ourselves.  Choose what makes you human(e), mind & heart.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

Wayne, Wayne, Wayne … May I call you Wayne?  After the past couple of months of reading your blog, I’m starting to feel like I know you.  After listening to your speech to the NAFB (National Association of Farm Broadcasting), its obvious that you are reading my writing as well  therefore you must feel like you are beginning to know me too. I wish your interpretation of my writing and direction had been a little closer in message to my own, but since you are comfortable annexing some of the key language of my blog ,calling you Mr. Pacelle seems a touch too formal.

As an individual who is intensely concerned with decent care for animals, and in a growing way a voice for a similarly concerned group, I have to disagree with your opinion that the HSUS proposed pet bills should have been met with universal approval.  The growing & increasingly organized opposition to the HSUS crafted animal care related bills openly demonstrates that they are not universally supported.  It is mis-leading to try and lump all the opposers as ‘puppy mills’ without recognizing that in the collective eyes of the HSUS (a) all dog breeders are lumped in to ‘puppy mill’ category and (b) all who disagree with HSUS positions are portrayed as not caring about decent animal care. 

I understand your passion for the ’cause’, but your truth is not the only truth. Your vision, is not the only vision. Blanketing a nation, at the state and federal levels, in the HSUS vision of ‘what is right’ is enough to give many a conscientious animal owner pause.  Many of the bills presented combine a distubing combination of vague language but defined numbers.  Despite their being spun as ‘puppy mill’ bills or as ‘Baby’s Bill’ or other warm and fuzzy names, the legal language contained within includes an overwhelming majority of dog breeders in their scope.  The ‘intent’ of a law doesn’t matter, only its language and scope of application.  Given the proclamations of animal law expertise by HSUS executive, your legal teams are well aware of this principle, making it hard to believe the broad targeting is anything but intentional.

Therefore it is no more astonishing for responsible breeders and the AKC to stand in opposition to HSUS proposed pet breeding bills infringing on their constitutional rights and freedoms of choice than it would be for you to stand in opposition to laws mandating that all citizens must eat meat, which would be in violation of your own rights.  Humane treatment of both human and animal demands a great deal of freedom to adapt on an individual basis, a trait that HSUS proposed bills are consistently lacking. 

As you ended your missive, I similarly end my own.  I believe that the American public needs to know who is proposing these despicable ‘puppy mill’ bills and how these battles are playing out. 

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved