This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Tngsd on 26 June 2010 - 22:06
Lack of scientific justification that these exercise requirements are needed: Curiously,
“Exercise Requirements” as described in the PUPS Bill are nearly identical to those recommended
in the new American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) “Model Bill” and “Model Regulations”
compiled on April 9, 2010,14 and released to the public in a AVMA Press Release dated June 3,
201015. In the related paper, “Model Bill and Regulations to Assure Appropriate Care for Dogs
Intended for Use as Pets: Background and Context” (April 9, 2010), the AVMA attempts to
justify the use of “performance standards” (i.e., “achieve a running stride” and “develop and/or
maintain normal muscle tone and mass as pertinent for age, breed, sex, and reproductive status
of the dog”) as compared with what they term “stringent exercise requirements” regarding size
and type of exercise area, or rigid time allotment for exercise.16
However, even with the citations provided by the AMVA in their “Background and Context” paper
in support of these Model Bill and Regulations canine exercise requirements, there remains a
striking lack of proof that such exercise improves the physical or psychological well-being of a
majority of dogs in such programs. In fact, one study cited by the AVMA, Campbell et al. (1988),
actually show little or no benefit to dogs either from structured/repetitive exercise, or from
opportunity to exercise freely in an individual enclosure of sufficient space, or ability to exercise
in a compatible group. These researchers concluded: “There were no significant differences in
laboratory findings among dogs in the four groups. This moderate exercise program had no
demonstrable effects. Similarly, continuous cage housing, without a formal exercise program,
could not be determined to be detrimental to the physiologic or health status of dogs.”17 As with
any other facet of animal husbandry, it is important to institute dog care regulations and
procedures which are supportable by scientific studies as beneficial to the animals, and not
propose sweeping changes based upon supposition of what dogs in an ideal state might need.
That is not to say that such evidence might not be produced in the future to show that such
required exercise provides a clear health and well-being advantages to the majority of dogs
owned by breeding kennels. Perhaps such benefits would be found to be restricted to certain
breeds, ages, living conditions, or health or injury status. But clearly, at this time, there is a lack
of hard evidence to show that specific exercise requirements mandated by PUPS for all dogs
owned by breeders and dealers covered under the amended AWA would significantly benefit a
majority of these dogs. Therefore, animal husbandry standards covering AWA-licensed breeders
should not include exercise standards until more evidence is found proving clear benefits for
dogs would be gained by such a program.
One discrepancy in the language between PUPS and the AVMA Model Bill and Regulations is that
PUPS apparently prohibits “goal-oriented” exercise18, while the AVMA Model Regulations supports
“goal-oriented” exercise, disfavoring other forms of exercise19. Since this analysis is an
examination of the wording found in PUPS, our discussion will be limited to a literal
interpretation of the PUPS language, and not speculate as to the underlying intentions of this
wording, or whether there was a mistake in transcribing wording from one document to another
when PUPS was being written. A disavowing of “goal oriented” exercise for dogs as written in
“Exercise Requirements” as described in the PUPS Bill are nearly identical to those recommended
in the new American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) “Model Bill” and “Model Regulations”
compiled on April 9, 2010,14 and released to the public in a AVMA Press Release dated June 3,
201015. In the related paper, “Model Bill and Regulations to Assure Appropriate Care for Dogs
Intended for Use as Pets: Background and Context” (April 9, 2010), the AVMA attempts to
justify the use of “performance standards” (i.e., “achieve a running stride” and “develop and/or
maintain normal muscle tone and mass as pertinent for age, breed, sex, and reproductive status
of the dog”) as compared with what they term “stringent exercise requirements” regarding size
and type of exercise area, or rigid time allotment for exercise.16
However, even with the citations provided by the AMVA in their “Background and Context” paper
in support of these Model Bill and Regulations canine exercise requirements, there remains a
striking lack of proof that such exercise improves the physical or psychological well-being of a
majority of dogs in such programs. In fact, one study cited by the AVMA, Campbell et al. (1988),
actually show little or no benefit to dogs either from structured/repetitive exercise, or from
opportunity to exercise freely in an individual enclosure of sufficient space, or ability to exercise
in a compatible group. These researchers concluded: “There were no significant differences in
laboratory findings among dogs in the four groups. This moderate exercise program had no
demonstrable effects. Similarly, continuous cage housing, without a formal exercise program,
could not be determined to be detrimental to the physiologic or health status of dogs.”17 As with
any other facet of animal husbandry, it is important to institute dog care regulations and
procedures which are supportable by scientific studies as beneficial to the animals, and not
propose sweeping changes based upon supposition of what dogs in an ideal state might need.
That is not to say that such evidence might not be produced in the future to show that such
required exercise provides a clear health and well-being advantages to the majority of dogs
owned by breeding kennels. Perhaps such benefits would be found to be restricted to certain
breeds, ages, living conditions, or health or injury status. But clearly, at this time, there is a lack
of hard evidence to show that specific exercise requirements mandated by PUPS for all dogs
owned by breeders and dealers covered under the amended AWA would significantly benefit a
majority of these dogs. Therefore, animal husbandry standards covering AWA-licensed breeders
should not include exercise standards until more evidence is found proving clear benefits for
dogs would be gained by such a program.
One discrepancy in the language between PUPS and the AVMA Model Bill and Regulations is that
PUPS apparently prohibits “goal-oriented” exercise18, while the AVMA Model Regulations supports
“goal-oriented” exercise, disfavoring other forms of exercise19. Since this analysis is an
examination of the wording found in PUPS, our discussion will be limited to a literal
interpretation of the PUPS language, and not speculate as to the underlying intentions of this
wording, or whether there was a mistake in transcribing wording from one document to another
when PUPS was being written. A disavowing of “goal oriented” exercise for dogs as written in
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top