N.C. Dog Breeders Wary of Missouri Referendum

Animal rights activists may have lost a two-year battle earlier this year to pass “puppy mill” legislation in North Carolina, but the war isn’t over.

North Carolina farmers and commercial dog breeders are casting a wary eye toward a referendum on Missouri’s November ballot: Proposition B, the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.” Opponents see the ballot measure — which won with 51.6 percent of the vote Nov. 2 — as an avenue for animal rights groups in other states to regulate a lot more than commercial dog breeding operations.

Opponents say the referendum would not prevent cruelty and neglect because it does not address all dogs, just those that are part of a breeding program. Instead, critics say the law would cause economic harm to licensed responsible dog breeders by forcing them to comply with arbitrary, costly, and unenforceable regulations, such as a limit on the number of dogs an individual can own.

While many federal, state, and local laws regulate animal welfare in North Carolina, animal rights groups say that existing laws are insufficient. Current laws do not address standards of care and that’s why puppy mill and related animal welfare legislation is needed, said Kimberley Alboum, state director of the North Carolina office of the Humane Society of the United States. (HSUS is a major supporter of Propsition B.) Without standards, animal control and other law enforcement officers in North Carolina are unable to take action on neglect or abuse until it rises to the level of animal cruelty.

Lisa Peterson, director of communications for the American Kennel Club, told Carolina Journal that Proposition B and similar proposals are misguided because they attempt to set a benchmark for animal care on an arbitrary number of animals. “Poor treatment and cruelty can occur no matter how many animals someone may own,” Peterson said. “The number of animals has nothing to do with whether they’ll receive good care.”

In 2009, Sen. Don Davis, D-Pitt, introduced Senate Bill 460, a bill to regulate commercial dog breeders in North Carolina. Many groups opposed the bill, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club, the North Carolina Sporting Dog Association, the Animal Agriculture Alliance, the National Animal Interest Alliance, and the North Carolina Agribusiness Council.

The House Finance Committee pulled the bill from consideration in late August, and Davis told CJ that he has no plans to refile the bill next session unless there’s more interest in passing it.

Alboum promised there will be another puppy mill bill and other animal welfare bills in next year’s General Assembly. Alboum told CJ she didn’t know who’d be sponsoring any new legislation, but vowed the fight isn’t over.

Breeders in Missouri have been outspoken in their opposition to Proposition B, fearing that legal limits on the number of dogs one person can own could be expanded to include other animals, including livestock. Kay Johnson, executive vice president of the Animal Agriculture Alliance, said this type of legislation would be the first step for those seeking to eliminate agribusiness entirely.

“If the goal is truly humane treatment of animals, the Humane Society would work with dog breeding and other agribusiness industries to educate them on ways to improve animal welfare. Instead, they spend millions of dollars trying to regulate the industry,” Johnson said.

Anita Andrews, campaign director of The Alliance for Truth, an organization formed to defeat Proposition B, said that HSUS falsely has claimed that Missouri has more than 3,000 puppy mills. “Missouri has 3,000 dog breeders, not 3,000 puppy mills,” Andrews said.

The Alliance says the real agenda behind Proposition B is completely to control animal enterprise and abolish animal ownership. Both Andrews and Johnson cited a quote by HSUS President Wayne Pacelle: “We [HSUS] have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals.”

Proposition B also has a gaping loophole, Andrews said. Because it covers only commercial breeders, it would exempt HSUS and other nonprofits operating animal shelters from the standards of care it would mandate.

People naturally want to help when they see videos and photos of abused or neglected dogs, cats, and other animals, Peterson said, but they don’t always understand the implications of the laws being proposed and mistakenly believe that such laws will prevent the type of abuse they see portrayed in these disturbing images.

“Those who fail to obtain a dog breeding license are already breaking the law and are unlikely to follow new laws,” said Peterson. “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.

Peterson cited Guilford County, where the Board of Commissioners is considering revisions to the animal control ordinance that, among other things, would allow animal control officers to have unfettered access to inspect private homes and properties of dog breeders without any prior notice, without proof of negligence or cruelty, and without a search warrant.

Guilford County’s proposed revisions raise another serious issue by making it unlawful for any person owning or responsible for any animal to fail to supply the animal with necessary medical attention.

“Such a requirement would elevate animals to the same or above the level of children or humans,” said Johnson.

Critics of puppy mill bans say enforcing existing laws would help curb animal abuse, but no law ultimately can prevent bad behavior.

Karen McMahan is a contributor to Carolina Journal.