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.

New Subscription Database Set To Smear Dog Breeders

Just when you thought you've had your fill of fake news and relentless attacks on animal breeders... a new website masquerading as a pro-dog breeder publication is resorting to disturbing tactics to disparage dog breeders, dog breeding, and the AKC.

Last week, a new publication launched called, The Canine Review. Sounds familiar, right? Not to be mistaken by Canine Review, Canada's oldest independent competitive dog show magazine featuring Canada's top canine handlers and dog show enthusiasts, founded in 1978.

An imposter, The Canine Review, was launched recently by an Emily Brill, former writer for BuzzFeed andThe Daily Beast. Emily Brill is not a credible source for issues surrounding the hobby and profession of dog breeding. Her organization and website is nothing more than an anti-breeder, animal rights hit job on dog breeders, while resorting to the all too familiar scheme of publishing lies and misinformation. 

In preparation for the launch of her dupe publication-website, Emily Brill called several individual breeders and interviewed them under the deceptively familiar-sounding name of The Canine Review. In HSUS fashion, Emily Brill twisted the truth, taking inspection reports and breeding protocol out of context and used it to smear these breeders on her new website. 

Ms. Brill makes access to these smear reports on her website to subscribers only. So, for $19.99 a year, anyone can pay to read the lies she purports. 

So much for transparency and legitimacy in Ms. Brill's new "publication."  

Brill Tweeted about the logo design for her new website which calls into questions whether there are copyright infringements with the name being almost identical to the Canadian publication, Canine Review. 

Brill has also posted an advertisement on the Berkley Journalism website seeking freelance writers to produce "feature stories for paid subscribers who will have access to a database of profiles of breeders and animal shelters across the country." 

This post is to serve as a warning to all dog breeders to avoid speaking with Emily Brill or anyone from The Canine Review.

The Cavalry Group will release an article soon which will set the record straight about the misinformation and lies that Emily Brill has published.

To those who are members, thank you for your membership and support.

Your friend in the fight,

Mindy Patterson

President

The Cavalry Group

Animal Rights Whack-A-Mole in Kitsap County, Washington

Here’s something you may not know. The animal rights movement loses a lot. You probably think that animal rights activists are out celebrating their victories every night but the truth is that they are constantly defeated at the federal, state, and local levels.

How can that be, you ask, when they are constantly in the news? 

That’s because they are loud and obnoxious. They are the epitome of the squeaky wheel. Even when they are led off in handcuffs they are happy to video the scene and post it online so they can raise money for bail.

But animal rights activists are persistent. They play the long game.

If they lose with bills at the federal level – and they do lose with bills, year after year after year – they try to get changes made through regulatory agencies. If that doesn’t work to their satisfaction, they move down to the state government level and try to get what they want, one state at a time.

When they are thwarted by state governments, they go local. Activists can turn up in your city or town and start whispering in the ears of your local council members.

When a bill that would have banned the sale of puppies and kittens from breeders was defeated with the help of The Cavalry Group in Washington’s state capitol, animal rights activists began singling out individual pet stores in the state. That’s how Jack Munro found himself at the center of a fight in Kitsap County Washington. Jack, who used to show and breed Collies and Shelties, is the owner of Farmland Feed and Pets in Kitsap County where he’s been in business for 43 years.

In December 2018, just after Christmas, Jack says he got a call from a county council member telling him that in five days they intended to vote on a measure that would put him out of business. He was told that he could see the proposed ordinance online. He had no input in writing the ordinance. The ordinance would ban his store from selling pets unless they came from the local shelter or rescue group.

It took seven months, but the ordinance was finally passed on July 22, 2019. The Cavalry Group mounted several large e-mail campaigns on behalf of Farmland to fight the ordinance. The county council received thousands of e-mails asking them to reject the proposed ordinance. The council told Jack, “No more emails!” According to Jack, many people turned out on behalf of Farmland at each reading of the ordinance. When it came to the date of the final vote the council moved the vote several times. No public comments were allowed for the final vote.

Jack would originally have been required to stop selling his animals immediately but that has been amended. He now has a year to stop selling his puppies and kittens.

Jack says that he will never sell shelter animals in his store. He has had a decades-long positive relationship with a professional licensed and inspected dog breeder in Kansas who has supplied him with puppies for the store. Through Farmland he has sold puppies with a 5-generation pedigree that were DNA-tested. They came with pictures of the parents, a complete medical record, a health guarantee, a free visit to the vet, and they were microchipped. The kittens in his store come from local people who drop them off. He gets them for free or never pays more than $10 for the really cute ones. They don’t come from breeders. Yet critics claim that Jack is only selling puppies and kittens for the money.

Per the local humane society, some 6,000 dogs were rehomed in Kitsap County in 2018. Three-thousand of them came from out of state. Thousands of dogs are brought into Washington from out of state by “rescue” groups every year, not all of them legally. Jack sells about 400 dogs per year at Farmland and only 3 percent of them ever have a problem. That’s 12 dogs. And Farmland’s dogs have a health guarantee and a contract.

Puppies at the local humane society in Kitsap County are $350. Purebred dogs are $250-$500. Kittens are $175. Before you can get any pet at the humane society you have to fill out an application and you have to be “approved.”

Jack is well-liked and some local people in the community, even people who do not particularly like commercial dog breeders, have said that they felt bad about this ordinance and putting Farmland out of business. According to Jack, even the local council members told him that they didn’t like forcing a local business to close.

Local ordinances banning pet stores from selling puppies from breeders, like the one that is forcing Farmland to close, are being passed all over the United States. Local governments are often pressured by animal activists to pick winners and losers in business because the activists are pushy and outspoken. Sometimes proposed ordinances are hidden so the public doesn’t know about them until after they are passed; votes are moved at the last minute; people who oppose an ordinance are not notified of changes; people affected by ordinances and their supporters are not given timely access to proposed drafts. This is the worst kind of dirty politics and it’s being played in our hometowns, affecting our animals and our businesses.

These ordinances can be passed anywhere and affect any of us. Today it’s pet stores but tomorrow it could be an ordinance to ban dog breeding or whether you can own pets at all. Good people are being driven out of business because of the animal rights agenda. This is not fair or honest government. Local government should not be agenda-driven and it shouldn’t pick winners and losers in business based on animal rights ideology. We all need to stand up to these bad ordinances and bills when they appear. We need to fight together and protect our rights.

  

Carlotta Cooper is vice president of Sportsmens’ & Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance and a regular contributing writer for The Cavalry Group, a member-based company working to defend the private property rights of animal owners and animal enterprise nationwide. Follow The Cavalry Group on Facebook, MeWe, Instagram, and Twitter.

Going On Offense To Protect Working Animals

Imagine having your livelihood banned by a small group of lawmakers because your legal business doesn’t align with their ideology or, perhaps, they just don’t like what you do. 

The businesses getting banned, outright, legislatively, at the local municipal level might surprise you. Businesses such horse-drawn carriages, pony rides, elephant rides, educational zoos, and exotic animal exhibits at fairs and circuses. All legal businesses, heavily licensed, regulated, and inspected. 

For the past eight years, our team at The Cavalry Group has had a front row seat to the animal rights-driven onslaught of 67 exotic animal exhibiting bans and transport bans at the local level in 28 states, negatively impacting those who exhibit at fairs, circuses, and educational venues.

In addition, 14 horse carriage bans have passed at the local city council level throughout the United States in recent years. 

Why, you ask? 

Look no further than the animal rights movement.  "Animal rights," not to be confused with animal welfare, is a political agenda chipping away incrementally by altering Americans’ views about animal ownership and animal use through media, through our schools, through legislation and even through litigation. Their goal is to end animal use in every possible capacity.

The animal rights movement is an ideology that has gradually gained a foothold in universities and government throughout the past 50 years.  What was once a radical, ragtag group of extremists is now a multi-million-dollar coalition of organizations that raise money under the guise of running pet shelters and ultimately, spend that money on the promotion of increased regulation on animal ownership and animal enterprise.  

Namely, these organizations are the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), Direct Action Everywhere (DXE), and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to name just a few.   There are hundreds of off shoot organizations with animal-friendly names that exist with the same motive and mission. 

The most insidious way in which the animal rights strategy has taken form has been in the subversive way these organizations pressure, infiltrate, and influence government. Hence, the way in which local legislators in city and county councils have been persuaded to ban, outright, these legal businesses utilizing working animals. 

The animal rights extremists have found that it is easier to promote their agenda to inexperienced legislators at the local city council or county council levels, persuading these lawmakers with false information and propaganda. 

It is because of this onslaught that The Cavalry Group worked with Missouri State Representative, Bryan Spencer to create legislation with the intent to slow down the animal rights steam roller at the local level. Accordingly, the Working Animal Protection Act was written and introduced and is moving through several states in the 2019 legislative session. 

If passed, Missouri HB559 would amend the Missouri state agriculture statute, Section A. Chapter 262, prohibiting an outright ban by any political subdivision at the 

any LEGAL business utilizing working animals in education, transportation, exhibition, and entertainment. This legislation DOES NOT take away local control. It simply states that these legal businesses utilizing working animals cannot be banned, outright or have regulations imposed that would lead to a ban. 

On Monday, April 8, 2019, Missouri HB559, the Working Animal Protection Act, is going to be voted on in the Missouri House of Representatives. We look forward to seeing it pass the full House in Missouri and move on to the Senate (SB416)!  

The Working Animal Protection Act is an effort to go on offense to protect animal enterprise across America -- to protect legal businesses, but also to protect our American way of life and heritage by keeping animals in our lives!

Stay up to date on the progress of the Working Animal Protection Act in Missouri and other states by going to www.workinganimalprotectionact.com 

Please help us by supporting our efforts and donate below!

Mindy Patterson

President

The Cavalry Group