Those of us who own and responsibly breed dogs have important constitutional right under the US Constitutions and Bill of Rights, as well as under individual State Bills of Rights and Constitutions.

The Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution protect citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, affirm our rights to property which cannot be denied without the due process of law, ensures equal enforcement and protection of the law, and imposes fundamental constraints on what government can do to a citizen in the name of the law.

However, in recent history there has been a movement generated by a small but very vocal group of radical animal activists (HSUS, PeTA, ALF) seeking the elimination of all pet owner rights. This activists’ movement has been carrying on a crusade against pet owner rights for years. Their tactics include terrorist threats, harassment, and destruction of property. But the greatest threat comes from their legislative proposals and the politician whose primary consideration is reelection. Supported by financially vested politicians, the activists have continued a relentless campaign against pet owner rights. This year has been a banner year for these organizations, as they continue to craft unreasonable, unfair, unenforceable, and undeniably anti-pet owner legislation to our state representatives under the guise of “puppy mill bills.”

Unfortunately, the activists have misled the general public and their political supporters into believing these changes will enhance animal welfare. Public confusion over animal welfare vs animal rights have provided the activists opportunities to introduce dangerous ploys such as changing “Pet Ownership” to “Pet Guardianship—Caretakers or Companion animals”. Animals do not have the capacity to understand or respond to the responsibilities incumbent with having "rights". Animal welfare is the responsibility of humans as with any valuable property.

What are the negative ramifications of these politically correct terms that are changing the nature of pet ownership and a pet owner’s rights? The ability for a pet owner to make decisions concerning the care of their pets would be under constant scrutiny. The activists’ lawyers would find a whole new revenue source by filing malpractice lawsuits against veterinarians making medical care for pets financially impossible for most citizens. The additional cost of malpractice insurance would be passed directly to the consumer. This in turn could cause some pet owner to forego a trip to the veterinarian, thus opening themselves up to a lawsuit due to their failure to provide necessary medical treatment.

Many politicians are promoting breed specific legislation and mandatory spay and neuter laws. Again, it is disguised as an effort to ‘protect’ the public or ‘control pet overpopulation’. In reality it is just another attempt to eliminate a pet owner’s rights by eliminating your choice to determine what you will do with your property.

In some states, there is law pending that if your dog injures someone who is trespassing on your property, even if it involves a serious criminal act (robbery, burglary, even rape) from which your dog is defending you, your dog will be considered vicious and could be euthanized. In some of the same bills, if your dog is observed as “acting in a threatening manner” in its own fenced yard, it could suffer similar consequences. What will define a “threatening manner?” Will that include a dog who barks at the UPS man?

HSUS and PeTA, as well as their supporting celebrities, continue to add fuel to the fire by proclaiming we have a “pet overpopulation” problem. In reality, there are shelters importing dogs from international shelters simply because they do not have the supply of dogs to adopt to meet the demand. And nearly every responsible breeder, including this author, will tell you that they have a waiting list of prospective and qualified puppy buyers that far exceeds the number of puppies that their yearly (or less) litter will produce.

Mandatory spay/neuter laws can actually have a negative impact on the veterinary care a dog receives. The owner who finds himself just one dog over his “limit” may elect not to provide veterinary care out of fear that the authorities will seize, and possibly euthanize, his dogs (in many states with legislature pending, the ONLY options, if found in noncompliance with limit laws as low as 3 intact females, is to send them to a shelter or rescue, or they will be euthanized – no options to rehome them with other responsible breeders or friends).

In a democratic society such as the United States, it should be the voice of the constituents – not the deep pockets of HSUS and PeTA – that should be influencing our elected officials to craft and vote for laws.