Hypocrisy Abounds Amid Animal Rights Agenda to End Horse-Drawn Carriages in Dallas

In recent years, the debate over the use of horse-drawn carriages has intensified, particularly in cities like Dallas, Texas most recently. Animal rights groups, led by ideologues such as Jodie Wiederkehr of the Chicago Alliance for Animals and Ban Horse Carriages Dallas, have been at the forefront of efforts to ban these lawful businesses simply because they do not align with their beliefs.

While Wiederkehr and her cohorts have consistently decried the treatment of carriage horses, citing concerns over their well-being in anti-carriage campaigns across the U.S., Wiederkehr is now claiming that regardless of adherence to regulations—such as not overworking the horses or providing sufficient breaks and horses having access to water, their latest argument introduces a new twist: Now, Ms. Wiederkehr contends that even if carriage operators follow every law and regulation to the letter, accidents are the real threat. Wiederkehr sites the tragic incident in Oklahoma City last week, where a drunk driver collided with a horse-drawn carriage, resulting in hospitalization of the carriage driver and the euthanasia of the horse due to serious injuries.

Yet, while this event undoubtedly highlights the dangers of impaired and irresponsible driving, it is a flawed premise upon which to base an argument against horse-drawn carriages. The focus shifts from addressing the root cause of the accident—drunk driving—to demonizing the lawful horse-drawn carriage companies. 

What's more, it raises questions about the true motivations behind these protests from Wiederkehr and her fellow animal rights followers. While Wiederkehr and others claim to advocate for animal welfare, their actions suggest a broader agenda aimed at dismantling industries they deem incompatible with their beliefs. And by leveraging emotionally charged incidents like the drunk driving accident in Oklahoma City, they seek to sway public opinion and garner support for their ultimate cause which is the abolition of all animal use.

Wiederkehr’s shallow approach ignores the complexities of the issue at hand which is the fact that horse-drawn carriages hold cultural and traditional significance for many urban communities, serving as both a tourist attraction and wholesome family activity, as well as a link to the past, and a connection to urban horses. Moreover, it should go without saying, but countless carriage operators take pride in their animals' well-being, going to great lengths to ensure they are treated with care and respect.

Rather than targeting a specific industry, efforts would be better directed towards addressing systemic issues such as drunk driving which poses a great danger to everyone on the road. 

The debate over horse-drawn carriages in Dallas, Texas has revealed that for animal rights ideologues like Jodie Wiederkehr, it's not simply about the treatment of horses, but rather a focused plan to eliminate urban horses and law-abiding horse drawn carriage businesses regardless of how humanely the horses are treated.

Mindy Patterson is the president of The Cavalry Group, a member based company protecting and defending the Constitutional and private property rights of law-abiding animal owners, animal-related businesses, farmers and ranchers legislatively and legally nationwide.

Goldie’s Act: Unveiling this Deceptive Legislation

 By Carlotta Cooper for The Cavalry Group

Americans may be the most kind-hearted people on earth. When it comes to helping those in need, including animals, there is no question about their generosity. That’s why it has been so easy for animal rights groups to scam their way into the pocketbooks of unwary people, begging for donations with sad stories. Just as bad, these groups push for legislation that is harmful to animal-related businesses. The so-called “Goldie’s Act” is one of these bills.

As introduced in Congress, H.R. 1788 or Goldie’s Act would supposedly increase enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act. When you look at the details, all that glitters is not so gold. In reality, the bill would make enforcement of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) more difficult. It could also lead to the unnecessary seizure and euthanasia of dogs.

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), under which professional dog breeders operate, has been updated multiple times, including updates in recent years. The regulations have never been tougher. Breeders are inspected before getting a license; and they are inspected regularly after they are licensed. They must follow a handbook with several hundred pages of regulations in order to pass their inspections and retain their license. They can be written up for any violations which they must then correct before the inspector comes back to check them. Failure to correct a violation can lead to heavy fines or worse. Inspectors can report any serious problems with animals to local law enforcement to be followed up on for animal cruelty.

There are serious remedies for any breeder who fails to follow AWA regulations. Animal rights zealots seek even more punitive actions against dog breeders since their ultimate goal is to end all dog breeding. Goldie’s Act is highly problematic. The act would:

• Redefine “violations” of the federal Animal Welfare Act;
• Allow for immediate seizure or euthanasia of animals suffering from “psychological harm,” a term it does not define;
• Remove distinctions between minor non-compliances such as paperwork errors and animal care violations. AWA enforcement emphasis should be on the health and welfare of animals;
• Require posting of images of violations on a publicly accessible database so breeders can be harassed; and
• Undermine the property rights of responsible breeders.

 Like many animal rights proposals, Goldie’s Act is a “feel good” measure which doesn’t do what it claims. Advocates say that it would improve the Animal Welfare Act when, in fact, it would create mistrust between breeders and inspectors. Instead of emphasizing proper education and care for dogs, it would lead to confusion. It would create an atmosphere of potential abuse and the unnecessary euthanasia of dogs.

Goldie’s Act would remove the distinction between “direct” violations (care and welfare) which are more serious; and paperwork or non-welfare “indirect” violations. Animals could be confiscated for paperwork errors. Breeders should always strive to have zero violations but the care and well-being of animals must take precedence. By equating direct and indirect violations, the act would create misleading perceptions about breeders licensed under the Animal Welfare Act. Extremists could use this information from public databases to harass breeders who had only been cited for paperwork violations.

As for the “psychological harm” of a dog, how would an inspector determine this condition? This vague, undefined term could lead to the euthanasia of perfectly normal dogs. Many people probably have quirky dogs that someone could mistakenly label “psychologically harmed.” What is the criteria for this kind of dog? No dog owner should have to fear the arbitrary seizure and euthanasia of their dog based on a vague term such as “psychological harm.”

The bill claims that it would expand the enforcement of federal breeder licensing requirements yet it tosses out recent enforcement enhancements that are in the middle of a 3-year implementation process (scheduled to be completed in October 2024). It is illogical to pass a bill to expand licensing requirements in the midst of new enforcement improvements. Breeders rightly point out that constantly changing arbitrary rules creates a confusing, expensive, and potentially harmful environment for animal care that leaves licensees, inspectors, and regulators unclear about AWA requirements.

Goldie’s Act would apply not just to large-scale commercial breeders. Any breeder is subject to USDA licensing if they have more than four “breeding females” and transfers even one of the offspring “sight unseen.” “Breeding females” has never been clearly defined but it is generally taken to mean an intact female. “Breeding females” includes any combination of dogs, cats, or other small pet mammals such as hamsters, guinea pigs, etc. You could theoretically have one female dog and three female hamsters, breed a litter of puppies, and be subject to Goldie’s Act. That means that someone could be a show dog breeder and fall under Goldie’s Act, if they are required to be USDA-licensed.

Despite claims to the contrary, Goldie’s Act would affect small breeders. It is not aimed only at larger commercial breeders.

Goldie’s Act (H.R.1788) is currently in the House Agriculture Committee/Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry and recently, a Senate companion bill has been introduced by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Rick Scott (R-FL) for a Senate companion bill, but a bill number is still pending. 

We urge you to contact the House Agriculture Committee Members, as well as your own U.S. Representative and Senators to express your concerns about Goldie’s Act. Ask the members to ignore the hateful rhetoric coming from the animal rights community. While some of those people might be concerned about dogs, they have been misled and misinformed. Others promoting Goldie’s Act are slick activists from well-known animal rights extremist organizations, backed by millions of dollars, who use animals as a way to gain money and power. Ask your representatives to do what’s best for the dogs and bury Goldie’s Act like an old bone.

To oppose Goldie's Act, CLICK HERE

------------

In addition to being a regular writer for The Cavalry Group, Carlotta Cooper is also vice president for the Sportsmen’s & Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance (SAOVA) and  long-time contributing editor for the weekly dog show magazine DN Dog News and the author of The Dog Adoption Bible, a Dog Writers Association of America (DWAA) award winner. In addition, she is an American Kennel Club Gazette breed columnist and is the author of several books about dogs.