My Take: What’s Wrong With the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights?
A “Dog and Cat Bill of Rights” was recently filed in the California State Assembly.
Assembly Bill 1881, recently filed in the California State Assembly, would require a “Dog and Cat Bill of Rights” to be posted in all shelters, rescue organizations, and animal control agencies throughout the state. Some of the bill’s language ruffled the fur of local trainer Becca Hintz. Read on for her take, which is a guest opinion piece and does not necessarily reflect the views of Bay Woof.
***
A “Dog and Cat Bill of Rights” was recently filed in the California State Assembly. Sounds great, right? So how could I, a dog lover and behavior consultant/trainer, not embrace this new animal rights bill wholeheartedly?
Nobody argues that we need to do more about puppy mills and the neglect and abuse of animals. But the broad language in this bill has the potential to restrict pets for everyday Californians, harming reputable breeders and dog lovers statewide. Unfortunately, it’s a familiar tactic by the more extreme animal rights activists.
Let’s take a look at some of the actual language in Assembly Bill 1881.
“Dogs and cats have the right to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect and abuse.”
Does this mean we can no longer breed pets responsibly? Does it mean we can no longer let our dogs engage in sports? Does it mean we can no longer have service dogs or cancer detection dogs? We just don’t know. This language is far too broad, potentially leading to unintended consequences at best or an abuse of power at worst.
“...the right to a life of comfort, free of fear and anxiety.”
As a behavior consultant, I work with a huge number of dogs with anxiety. It takes time to resolve anxiety challenges. We improve dogs’ lives to the best of our ability, but what happens to dogs who simply cannot be free of anxiety?
“...the right to daily mental stimulation and appropriate exercise.”
Who will decide what level of exercise and stimulation each animal needs? If I have a dog who is anxious on walks, will I be required to walk the dog anyway? Will appropriate levels of exercise be the same for a two-year-old Malinois as for a 12-year-old Cavalier King Charles Spaniel?
“...the right to nutritious food and sanitary water and shelter...”
Anyone who has ever had a conversation about nutrition for dogs knows what a fun topic this is. It can quickly spiral into a 500-comment social media post or 10 different opinions from 6 different people regarding grain free/not grain free, raw/no raw, etc. Who gets to decide what is nutritionally sound for dogs, and what happens if someone cannot afford the diet deemed nutritious?
“...the right to preventative and therapeutic healthcare.”
I breed and show dogs and work extensively with rescue organizations. Many people who provide incredibly loving homes for dogs simply don’t have the finances to underwrite every preventative or therapeutic option. Again, this is a nice thought, but the language lends itself to extreme interpretations. If someone can’t afford preventative care, does that mean they can no longer have a dog? Will all dogs have to have their heart checked, eyes checked, and dental work performed each year to be sure they’re getting the best care? If your pet is in an accident or has an illness that requires treatment that you can’t afford, will you get in trouble? What about dogs with genetic health tendencies like hip dysplasia (a simple hip replacement can run $10,000 to $15,000)? Unless we want pet ownership in California to be reserved for the elite, this is a slippery slope we really don’t want to start down.
“...the right to be spayed and neutered to prevent unwanted litters.”
Interestingly, this phrase implies that humans can somehow divine whether or not an animal wants to have a litter. But at its most extreme interpretation, this simple clause could ultimately lead to the end of pet ownership. Without litters, we may never know the joy, love, and companionship of one of the most wonderful creatures on earth. Yes, we need to have responsible spay and neuter programs, but this is an overreach.
Weirdly, after all this strenuous language, the bill states that it “does not create or imply a private right of action for a violation,” meaning basically no one will actually be enforcing it. The bill would simply require every shelter, animal control agency, or rescue group to post a copy of the Dog and Cat Bill of Rights in a conspicuous place, with a fine of up to $250 for failure to do so.
So what’s the point of all this? Unfortunately, the bill appears to be another attempt by some of the more extreme animal rights organizations to advance an agenda with the potential to negatively impact the relationship between pets and their owners. As I see it, this legislation is just a starting point for more extreme measures that may actually be enforceable in the future.
No one wants to protect animals more than I do, but this bill is not the way to do it. We have to be smarter. We have to work together.
Please read the bill yourself and decide if you want to reach out to your elected officials about it. To me, it’s anti-pet propaganda that’s out of step with the reality of most California pet lovers.