-
If you're a past member of the board, but can't recall your password any more, you don't need to set up a new account (unless you wish to). As long as you recall your old login name, you can log in with that user name then select 'forgot password' and the board will email you at your registration email, to let you reset your password.
News: States cracking down on puppy mills
- Thread starter Karlin
- Start date
Cathy Moon
Well-known member
That's how they get around being regulated by the USDA - by selling puppies directly to consumers rather than wholesale selling to pet shops.
And if any of us, as individual pet dog owners, were to treat our dogs the way they are treated in puppy mills, we'd be most likely be prosecuted. Somehow the millers do get away with it, perhaps by living in remote areas where neighbors don't complain. The only way to catch them is to do inspections.
And if any of us, as individual pet dog owners, were to treat our dogs the way they are treated in puppy mills, we'd be most likely be prosecuted. Somehow the millers do get away with it, perhaps by living in remote areas where neighbors don't complain. The only way to catch them is to do inspections.
News:States cracking down on puppy mills
Ive just read the Web Site Karlin gave ,it would sicken you to read what is going on in those places .
What I cant understand is anyone who calls themselves an An Animal Lover can be protesting about Bills being brought in to try and close down those tupes of places in order to save the suffering of Animals
In Britain they are called Puppy Farmers ,and unfortunately there is the same out -cry from many ,who are agin the British Government trying to bring in legislation to curtail the activities of the Puppy Farmers
One way that might be away forward in Britain could be ,if only the KENNEL CLUB would insist that their Accredited Breeders Scheme ,and Im only talking about the Cavalier Breed ,that those Breeders had to do Health Checks on their Cavalier Breeding Stock for SM and Heart Problems ,but the Kennel Club wont do this
Also another way might be for Mandatory Health Tests to be carried out, this would surely be a way of reaching Puppy Farmers
Finally ,could I ask this contraversionial question ,what is the difference between a Breeder who keeps between 20-40 Dogs and the other type of Breeders ?
What is the difference between what is called a Hobby Breeder and a Commercial Breeder?
Bet
Ive just read the Web Site Karlin gave ,it would sicken you to read what is going on in those places .
What I cant understand is anyone who calls themselves an An Animal Lover can be protesting about Bills being brought in to try and close down those tupes of places in order to save the suffering of Animals
In Britain they are called Puppy Farmers ,and unfortunately there is the same out -cry from many ,who are agin the British Government trying to bring in legislation to curtail the activities of the Puppy Farmers
One way that might be away forward in Britain could be ,if only the KENNEL CLUB would insist that their Accredited Breeders Scheme ,and Im only talking about the Cavalier Breed ,that those Breeders had to do Health Checks on their Cavalier Breeding Stock for SM and Heart Problems ,but the Kennel Club wont do this
Also another way might be for Mandatory Health Tests to be carried out, this would surely be a way of reaching Puppy Farmers
Finally ,could I ask this contraversionial question ,what is the difference between a Breeder who keeps between 20-40 Dogs and the other type of Breeders ?
What is the difference between what is called a Hobby Breeder and a Commercial Breeder?
Bet
On your last question Bet -- I would say it is the amount of interaction all those dogs get. If they mostly just spend time in kennels and runs, with each other, to be brought out for some occasional interaction with people or for a show -- all I can say is, I have yet to meet a reputable breeder who would EVER home a puppy to a pet home that would treat a dog in this way. If a larger operation has employees who give each dog the kind of quality attention and *time* that pet owners would be expected to give their own dogs, then the large numbers would concern me less, but I'd still wonder how this is still said to be a 'hobby'. I would guess a look at accounts for such large operations would indicate they are being run more as a business. On the flip side, I don't see how breeders who already make a strong case for how difficult it is to break even, much less make money, on litters at hobby level with proper care, could afford a staff to mind large numbers of dogs. icon_nwunsure
On the issue of legislation -- obviously the *right* legislation is needed -- but what worries me is that there is in some quarters blanket opposition to ALL legislation. The bedfellows for blanket opposition at least in the US, are the mass breeders themselves and many of the clubs and hobby breeders. That is pretty unedifying to know they are fighting on the same side and is why I think breeders need to be part of a solution, because this issue will not go away, there needs to be oversight, and legislation -- counter to what so many breeders argue- -- DOES WORK. England for example brought in much stronger anti-puppy farming legislation a few years back which is well known to have WORKED in broad terms in England -- and pushed puppy farmers into Wales, Scotland and Ireland, which have poor legislation. Yes there are still problems in the UK and puppy farms/BYBs remain a legislative concern but anyone breeding in England can confirm the vast majority of puppy farms are now in Wales and can also confirm -- as can the ISPCA in Ireland -- that some of these operations jumped the Irish Sea and came to Ireland, adding to our existing problem.
I have yet to see a single English breeder saying such legislation damaged the hobby in England and all the shows there on up to Crufts seem not just healthy but thriving. So it simply is not true for some hobby breeders and their lobbyists in the US to argue that the millers will just blithely continue onwards despite any legislation and that when legislation does come in will demolish the world of show breeding.
What will happen is that the broader population in the US, and legislators, will continue to push for ways of managing a mass breeding situation that is spiralling out of control (the sheer numbers of bills that keep popping up is testament to this. There used to be almost none). Likewise the Irish population is outraged at yet another puppy farm raid last week of dogs kept in shocking conditions -- basically dark bunkers in the ground -- some unable to walk with deformed limbs from being kept and bred in small cages. The ISPCA had to put down 16 dogs already beyond hope. If that seems a small number to US folks, keep in mind that at 60 or so dogs, this puppy farm operations was considered to be *large* by Irish standards. It would be tiny by US standards -- as I have argued before, Ireland is made out to be a *huge* source of cavaliers into the US market but it simply is not the case and is a deflection of where the *real issues lies*; a single US state would produce far more in a year). Numerous individuals and organisations again are pushing the government here to implement the proposed changes to our existing legislation to tackle this problem and begin an overhaul of primary legislation as well. The IKC chose to be PART of the process as member of the working group and has remained supportive of the broader recommendations for changes. The Irish hobby has pushed FOR better controls, not argued against them as somehow damaging their right to breed. Because they were involved in the process and recognised change was needed, they helped shape legislation that they clearly do not feel damages their hobby. The sticking point has been the government.
It would be ironic if new Irish legislation stems the modest flow of Irish cavaliers into the US now, while the US puppy mill industry continues to flood the US market with home grown miller puppies.
Education is very definitely part of this issue too but the clubs and parent organisations don't seem to want to do the large scale education -- individual breeders already say they cannot deal with the volume of email they get enquiring about puppies and if the individual breeder cannot reply to educate the prospective buyers, then some national ad campaigns and a rethink of how club websites are structured, and the information they easily make available to both buyers and breeders, seems in order. Either way the buck does stop with the hobby breeders and their clubs if they want education on the agenda and wish to remain the caretakers of their respective breeds -- and the proposed solutions need to be coming from them.
Speaking from the Irish perspective -- the clubs and reputable breeders have done very little to educate buyers on the right way to find a puppy and a breeder. Instead, this has fallen entirely to the welfare organisations -- the ISPCA, individual rescues (I have a whole page about finding a puppy in Ireland on www.ckcsrescue.com) and to people who run lists and discussion boards. Here too, the real drive should be coming from breeders and the clubs and the IKC.
On the issue of legislation -- obviously the *right* legislation is needed -- but what worries me is that there is in some quarters blanket opposition to ALL legislation. The bedfellows for blanket opposition at least in the US, are the mass breeders themselves and many of the clubs and hobby breeders. That is pretty unedifying to know they are fighting on the same side and is why I think breeders need to be part of a solution, because this issue will not go away, there needs to be oversight, and legislation -- counter to what so many breeders argue- -- DOES WORK. England for example brought in much stronger anti-puppy farming legislation a few years back which is well known to have WORKED in broad terms in England -- and pushed puppy farmers into Wales, Scotland and Ireland, which have poor legislation. Yes there are still problems in the UK and puppy farms/BYBs remain a legislative concern but anyone breeding in England can confirm the vast majority of puppy farms are now in Wales and can also confirm -- as can the ISPCA in Ireland -- that some of these operations jumped the Irish Sea and came to Ireland, adding to our existing problem.
I have yet to see a single English breeder saying such legislation damaged the hobby in England and all the shows there on up to Crufts seem not just healthy but thriving. So it simply is not true for some hobby breeders and their lobbyists in the US to argue that the millers will just blithely continue onwards despite any legislation and that when legislation does come in will demolish the world of show breeding.
What will happen is that the broader population in the US, and legislators, will continue to push for ways of managing a mass breeding situation that is spiralling out of control (the sheer numbers of bills that keep popping up is testament to this. There used to be almost none). Likewise the Irish population is outraged at yet another puppy farm raid last week of dogs kept in shocking conditions -- basically dark bunkers in the ground -- some unable to walk with deformed limbs from being kept and bred in small cages. The ISPCA had to put down 16 dogs already beyond hope. If that seems a small number to US folks, keep in mind that at 60 or so dogs, this puppy farm operations was considered to be *large* by Irish standards. It would be tiny by US standards -- as I have argued before, Ireland is made out to be a *huge* source of cavaliers into the US market but it simply is not the case and is a deflection of where the *real issues lies*; a single US state would produce far more in a year). Numerous individuals and organisations again are pushing the government here to implement the proposed changes to our existing legislation to tackle this problem and begin an overhaul of primary legislation as well. The IKC chose to be PART of the process as member of the working group and has remained supportive of the broader recommendations for changes. The Irish hobby has pushed FOR better controls, not argued against them as somehow damaging their right to breed. Because they were involved in the process and recognised change was needed, they helped shape legislation that they clearly do not feel damages their hobby. The sticking point has been the government.
It would be ironic if new Irish legislation stems the modest flow of Irish cavaliers into the US now, while the US puppy mill industry continues to flood the US market with home grown miller puppies.
Education is very definitely part of this issue too but the clubs and parent organisations don't seem to want to do the large scale education -- individual breeders already say they cannot deal with the volume of email they get enquiring about puppies and if the individual breeder cannot reply to educate the prospective buyers, then some national ad campaigns and a rethink of how club websites are structured, and the information they easily make available to both buyers and breeders, seems in order. Either way the buck does stop with the hobby breeders and their clubs if they want education on the agenda and wish to remain the caretakers of their respective breeds -- and the proposed solutions need to be coming from them.
Speaking from the Irish perspective -- the clubs and reputable breeders have done very little to educate buyers on the right way to find a puppy and a breeder. Instead, this has fallen entirely to the welfare organisations -- the ISPCA, individual rescues (I have a whole page about finding a puppy in Ireland on www.ckcsrescue.com) and to people who run lists and discussion boards. Here too, the real drive should be coming from breeders and the clubs and the IKC.
Cathy Moon
Well-known member
Bet, your last two questions seem to be THE questions we'd all like answers to, because then it would be easier to aim legislation at a very specific group to be regulated.
This is just my opinion, but what makes most sense to me is to look at the quality of the dogs' lives. I'm posting a link to Wikipedia where it shows Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Even though this hierarchy of needs is supposed to be in regards to humans, it's fairly easy to apply it to dogs.
The very lowest level of needs, Physiological, are barely met in the worst puppy mills, where dogs are in survival mode and experience a lot of discomfort. Food, water, and temperature needs are barely met. I'm thinking of a barn with cages and poor heating and poor light.
The next level, Safety, where dogs feel secure and the dogs' health needs are being met - along with all the physiological needs being met - could possibly be found at a large hobby breeder or a "commercial" breeder. I'm thinking of an out building with kennels and runs, and a person whose dogs are seen by a vet.
Then the next level up, Love/Belonging, where the dogs are part of the family, receiving attention and affection - I think small hobby breeders whose dogs live in their house and are members of the family would meet these needs as well as all of the needs of the two lower levels. This is where the dogs' psychological needs are being met, and they're being treated like the companion animals they were bred to be.
The next higher level, Esteem, in my mind, is reserved for assistance and working dogs, as well as therapy and agility dogs. These dogs are eager, confident, and I think they have a sense of worth.
So back to your question, what is the difference between a Hobby breeder and a commercial breeder - I think a small hobby breeder would treat their dogs like companion animals in their homes. And I think a commercial breeder treats dogs more like livestock, not companions.
This is just my opinion. And I do like open discussions!
I didn't write about back yard breeders, or health testing yet.
News:States cracking down on puppy mills
Thank you Karlin and Cathy for your Posts
I just cant understand why so many Cavalier Breeders are so bitter about the proposed Legislations to try and curb the activities of BYB and Puppy Mills ,we know them here in Britain as Puppy Farmers ,surely as someone Posted ,its the suffering of Animals thats involved ,thats the big picture
I really wonder why the talk about Animal Rights Activists is being brought into this argument ,this surely is about the suffering of Animals being kept in terrible conditions ,the Breeders are on about their rights ,but what has that got to do with this problem .
Nobody in their right mind would condone what is taking place in those places
Bet
Thank you Karlin and Cathy for your Posts
I just cant understand why so many Cavalier Breeders are so bitter about the proposed Legislations to try and curb the activities of BYB and Puppy Mills ,we know them here in Britain as Puppy Farmers ,surely as someone Posted ,its the suffering of Animals thats involved ,thats the big picture
I really wonder why the talk about Animal Rights Activists is being brought into this argument ,this surely is about the suffering of Animals being kept in terrible conditions ,the Breeders are on about their rights ,but what has that got to do with this problem .
Nobody in their right mind would condone what is taking place in those places
Bet
matties mum
Well-known member
We are trying to deal with a different situation here but it's the same threat for the dogs basically.
We are facing with large operations that simply import puppies illegaly from Romania, Russia and other parts of eastern europe as well as the far east.
These people buy puppies in markets for $50 or so and bring them to Israel to be sold as 'qulity pure bred dogs from europe' for about $1000. The dogs are often sick and suffer alot. Such a business is based on fraud and missleading people. The puppies are of course the produce of puppy mills usually.
It is basically illegal to bring a puppy into the country that is under 4 months old but the authorities are useless in fighting these people.
The Israeli toy group club has brought this to national TV on the news to educate people just last week. I am also trying to help in getting this issue on radio talk shows. However, in a country that deals with such security concerns non-stop, the civil issues are often at the bottom of the list...
We are facing with large operations that simply import puppies illegaly from Romania, Russia and other parts of eastern europe as well as the far east.
These people buy puppies in markets for $50 or so and bring them to Israel to be sold as 'qulity pure bred dogs from europe' for about $1000. The dogs are often sick and suffer alot. Such a business is based on fraud and missleading people. The puppies are of course the produce of puppy mills usually.
It is basically illegal to bring a puppy into the country that is under 4 months old but the authorities are useless in fighting these people.
The Israeli toy group club has brought this to national TV on the news to educate people just last week. I am also trying to help in getting this issue on radio talk shows. However, in a country that deals with such security concerns non-stop, the civil issues are often at the bottom of the list...
Bruce H
Well-known member
OK, I'll put my head on the chopping block.
First of all, I don't know of a single breeder that condones what is happening in the puppy mills. I have yet to see a single redeeming feature in a puppy mill. The problem with too many of these bills comes when they don't distinguish between a "high volume breeder" and a smaller breeder like myself. I honestly believe that these bills are well intentioned but they end up being drafted without the input of the average, responsible breeder. And then there are ones that have HSUS or PETA behind them who have stated in the past that their goal is to do away with pets so the animals can "run free".
Maybe the best way to explain this is to use the bill currently being worked on in Minnesota. I'm not sure who, if anyone the author was working with, but not a single breed club that we know of was consulted. The local breed clubs finally got to the author and it is tabled for now while revisions are being made. At this time I have no idea what the revisions may be. Believe me the local clubs are watching this very closely.
I'll start by briefly explaining how our dogs are kept. We have a 4 season heated porch that we have converted to our "dog room". This is where all the crates are kept, where the dogs sleep at night, where we do our grooming, etc. Baths are done either in our bathroom in the bathtub or in the kitchen sink for our smaller Cavaliers.
Our daily routine goes something like this: In the morning, everyone comes out of their crate (except the 3 or 4 that sleep with us) and goes outside to pee and poop (fenced back yard, about 1/4 acre), then comes in for an hour or so while we watch the news in the living room covered in dogs. They then go into their crates to be fed. After they're fed, it's outside and inside as weather permits. When inside they have the run of the house. I'm sure this all sounds pretty familiar to most of you, as this is the way most pet people keep their dogs.
With that routine in mind, here is the link to the bill in it's original form http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S0121.0.html&session=ls85 . The first part is a lot of definitions and boilerplate, but the meat of it probably starts at about line 5.11. This sounds great as a way to try to control the puppy mills until you realize it would also apply to me and most of the breeders oround here that I would consider responsible. This bill does not recognize that most responsible breeder's dogs live in the house with them.
If I had to comply with those requirements for Confinement Areas, it would mean a huge addition on my house. No way the City would permit something like that, so let's say I move to the country and build this big building (Confinement Area) with dog runs. How am I now any different (from outward appearances anyway) from the puppy mills? No way my dogs would ever be forced to live in dog runs, so every time I was going to be inspected, I would have to move them to the runs and pretend they were housed in runs. Of course, this would never happen, because we just don't have the thousands of dollars it would take to comply; we would immediately be out of business. And I suspect all the other responsible breeders in this area would be too. Then who are you left with? Seems like your options are BYB's who ignore the law and the puppy mills who can afford to comply with the law. Not much of a choice for those of you looking for a puppy.
Right now I am licensed by the City and Animal Control comes out once a year to inspect. The animal control officer also works part time for one of the local vets; you won't put anything over on her! She has never had a problem with our house or how we keep our dogs because she is allowed to use some judgement and common sense. The current system in our city works very well.
So there is why I fight so hard against the Minnesota bill. I don't want to see them throw out the baby with the bath water. When I see a bill that recognizes the difference between a puppy mill and a small, responsible breeder, I can promise you I will be among those at the head of the line fighting in favor of the bill. Being involved in Cavalier Rescue, I have seen the results of the puppy mills.
First of all, I don't know of a single breeder that condones what is happening in the puppy mills. I have yet to see a single redeeming feature in a puppy mill. The problem with too many of these bills comes when they don't distinguish between a "high volume breeder" and a smaller breeder like myself. I honestly believe that these bills are well intentioned but they end up being drafted without the input of the average, responsible breeder. And then there are ones that have HSUS or PETA behind them who have stated in the past that their goal is to do away with pets so the animals can "run free".
Maybe the best way to explain this is to use the bill currently being worked on in Minnesota. I'm not sure who, if anyone the author was working with, but not a single breed club that we know of was consulted. The local breed clubs finally got to the author and it is tabled for now while revisions are being made. At this time I have no idea what the revisions may be. Believe me the local clubs are watching this very closely.
I'll start by briefly explaining how our dogs are kept. We have a 4 season heated porch that we have converted to our "dog room". This is where all the crates are kept, where the dogs sleep at night, where we do our grooming, etc. Baths are done either in our bathroom in the bathtub or in the kitchen sink for our smaller Cavaliers.
Our daily routine goes something like this: In the morning, everyone comes out of their crate (except the 3 or 4 that sleep with us) and goes outside to pee and poop (fenced back yard, about 1/4 acre), then comes in for an hour or so while we watch the news in the living room covered in dogs. They then go into their crates to be fed. After they're fed, it's outside and inside as weather permits. When inside they have the run of the house. I'm sure this all sounds pretty familiar to most of you, as this is the way most pet people keep their dogs.
With that routine in mind, here is the link to the bill in it's original form http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S0121.0.html&session=ls85 . The first part is a lot of definitions and boilerplate, but the meat of it probably starts at about line 5.11. This sounds great as a way to try to control the puppy mills until you realize it would also apply to me and most of the breeders oround here that I would consider responsible. This bill does not recognize that most responsible breeder's dogs live in the house with them.
If I had to comply with those requirements for Confinement Areas, it would mean a huge addition on my house. No way the City would permit something like that, so let's say I move to the country and build this big building (Confinement Area) with dog runs. How am I now any different (from outward appearances anyway) from the puppy mills? No way my dogs would ever be forced to live in dog runs, so every time I was going to be inspected, I would have to move them to the runs and pretend they were housed in runs. Of course, this would never happen, because we just don't have the thousands of dollars it would take to comply; we would immediately be out of business. And I suspect all the other responsible breeders in this area would be too. Then who are you left with? Seems like your options are BYB's who ignore the law and the puppy mills who can afford to comply with the law. Not much of a choice for those of you looking for a puppy.
Right now I am licensed by the City and Animal Control comes out once a year to inspect. The animal control officer also works part time for one of the local vets; you won't put anything over on her! She has never had a problem with our house or how we keep our dogs because she is allowed to use some judgement and common sense. The current system in our city works very well.
So there is why I fight so hard against the Minnesota bill. I don't want to see them throw out the baby with the bath water. When I see a bill that recognizes the difference between a puppy mill and a small, responsible breeder, I can promise you I will be among those at the head of the line fighting in favor of the bill. Being involved in Cavalier Rescue, I have seen the results of the puppy mills.
Cathy Moon
Well-known member
Wow, your current set up with your dogs is really good, and I think it would be totally wrong to be forced to put them in kennels!
Also, don't you think the number of intact dogs is too low at 6 dogs to define a hobby breeder? The MN bill doesn't specifically define a 'breeding dog' like the Ohio bill for the purpose of counting the number of dogs. For example, you could have intact dogs that you don't breed in a given year - perhaps the bitch isn't 2.5 years old yet, or one is having the year off, etc. You shouldn't have to add them into your total.
One thing I plan to do today is print the MN bill out, then compare it to Ohio's. I'm fairly certain that Ohio's bill differentiates between dogs being kept in confinement and those who are not (which is dogs living in the home.) I think the MN bill could improved upon in order to make it better for the most number of people, yet have it protect the dogs it was meant to.
Would it be possible to get more directly involved in helping revise the bill? Your voice could make a huge difference!
In Ohio, there are actually some breeders who are in favor of the Ohio bill, not the puppy millers of course.
Also, don't you think the number of intact dogs is too low at 6 dogs to define a hobby breeder? The MN bill doesn't specifically define a 'breeding dog' like the Ohio bill for the purpose of counting the number of dogs. For example, you could have intact dogs that you don't breed in a given year - perhaps the bitch isn't 2.5 years old yet, or one is having the year off, etc. You shouldn't have to add them into your total.
One thing I plan to do today is print the MN bill out, then compare it to Ohio's. I'm fairly certain that Ohio's bill differentiates between dogs being kept in confinement and those who are not (which is dogs living in the home.) I think the MN bill could improved upon in order to make it better for the most number of people, yet have it protect the dogs it was meant to.
Would it be possible to get more directly involved in helping revise the bill? Your voice could make a huge difference!
In Ohio, there are actually some breeders who are in favor of the Ohio bill, not the puppy millers of course.
Last edited:
Cathy Moon
Well-known member
Once again, this is just my opinion. Name calling can be a way to deflect attention away the issue at hand, rather than to focus on it. My guess is it would help the name caller maintain a certain level of Denial, which is what would be needed to ignore/condone what is happening at puppy farms and puppy mills.
As I said earlier, I don't belong to any AR group, and many people who object to puppy mills are the same way. It's more a matter of conscience, rather than belonging to a group that motivates the average citizen to object to puppy mills! This past April, when my husband and I were getting ourselves organized to protest the dog auction in Ohio, it didn't take us long to realize that we would be amongst different types of people having different beliefs and philosophies about dog breeding, dog rescuing, and dog owning. Many of us were philosophically at odds with each other, and could barely stand next to each other! So we all moved around a bit during the protest and managed to have a bit of conversation. I was very uncomfortable standing near people from certain organizations I will not name here. The only thing we all had in common was the only thing that mattered that day - puppy mills dog and auctions are wrong!!!! We all agreed on that one thing! And luckily the group of individuals was large enough that we got statewide attention from newspapers and we were on the local news on TV.
In other words, a person can object to puppy farms and not be an Animal Rights Activist!
Last edited:
Bruce H
Well-known member
It may also be too low at 12 even if I had just 8 dogs. Read the definition of "Possess". It's a very common practice among breeders to sell an intact dog to another breeder and co-own it; it is also common practice to co-own an intact dog that lives elsewhere so either I or the other owner can show it (a dog has to be intact to show). So while I may have 8 dogs here, if I co-own 5 more that may live across the country, I must come into compliance with the law.
So you can see there's sometimes a lot more to these bills than meets the eye sometimes. And once a law is in place, it's MUCH easier to change the rules and extremely difficult to get it abolished if it turns out to have unintended consequences. That's why we have to be so careful about supporting a bill whose intent is to shut down puppy mills, because it may shut down a lot more than the mills if it's not written very carefully.
So what's the solution? At this time, darned if I know. Real tough problem.
Cathy Moon
Well-known member
One solution would be to join the group that is drafting/revising the bill. I know that will take some of your personal time, but face it how else will the job be done right. It takes away from my personal time to protest the Ohio dog auction and puppy mills.
The best hobby breeders need to be a part of the legislative process to bring these issues to light. I wouldn't leave it up to a national club like AKC, why not get volunteers from a local club within the state the bill is being written. These folks writing and revising the bills are trying to address a specific problem, the suffering of dogs, and cannot read the minds of the hobby breeders. It takes teamwork to negotiate and draft bills.
The best hobby breeders need to be a part of the legislative process to bring these issues to light. I wouldn't leave it up to a national club like AKC, why not get volunteers from a local club within the state the bill is being written. These folks writing and revising the bills are trying to address a specific problem, the suffering of dogs, and cannot read the minds of the hobby breeders. It takes teamwork to negotiate and draft bills.
Bruce H
Well-known member
In Minnesota the local clubs are trying to work with the bill's author. The people here who are working with them are small breeders like myself with all different breeds of dogs. And the people who are involved are people I trust completely.
I wish I had the time to be more involved, but I just plain don't. Maybe I'll win the lottery and won't have to work any more. But then, I guess I'd have to start buying tickets in order to win
I wish I had the time to be more involved, but I just plain don't. Maybe I'll win the lottery and won't have to work any more. But then, I guess I'd have to start buying tickets in order to win
Cathy T
Well-known member
Here's my two cents. There has to be something done to crack down on the puppy mills. But, at the same time, it can't be negative towards the smaller responsible breeders. Your description about how you keep your dogs and what would happen if the laws were changed are a perfect description of the problem.
No clue how to solve the problem.....the millers have got to be shut down but not at the expense of running the responsible and caring breeders out of business.
No clue how to solve the problem.....the millers have got to be shut down but not at the expense of running the responsible and caring breeders out of business.
Cathryn
Well-known member
This seems to be quite a complex situation to me, I agree that the puppy mills need to be stamped out, I am also of the opinion that in doing so it will mean the end of hundreds, thousands even of caring, responsible breeders too, whom quite simply cannot afford to meet the requirements to continue something they have always done for the love of their breed. There is no simple answer really. Also what about AB 1634 where they propse that ALL puppies be spayed/neutered by the age of 4 months?? I feel this is so extreme, it could mean the end of dogs in that state for good!!
I wish I had an answer to this but I don't......
I wish I had an answer to this but I don't......
News:States cracking down on puppy mills
Ive been thinking a lot about this problem ,since I live in Scotland ,and the Puppy Farming goes here as well .
Is someone who has ,say upwards of 20 Dogs ,not running a Commercial Business ,
They must be selling Puppies to be making money .I think Im right in saying this ,that those premises are inspected ,and must have a licence .I dont know whether the Breeders pay Income Tax ,but I would think they would be having to ,since they are running a business
So why are the Puppy farms or Mills not curtailed in the number of Dogs they can keep ,are they regularly ,inspected must have a licence ,pay income tax
If they go above say 20 ,then the income tax inspectors ,etc ,are all involved
If there's a will there's a way ,surely its the suffering of the Dogs that matters ,and 20 Dogs would be enough for any Breeder ,and if theyve more than that number theyre running a business .
Bet
Ive been thinking a lot about this problem ,since I live in Scotland ,and the Puppy Farming goes here as well .
Is someone who has ,say upwards of 20 Dogs ,not running a Commercial Business ,
They must be selling Puppies to be making money .I think Im right in saying this ,that those premises are inspected ,and must have a licence .I dont know whether the Breeders pay Income Tax ,but I would think they would be having to ,since they are running a business
So why are the Puppy farms or Mills not curtailed in the number of Dogs they can keep ,are they regularly ,inspected must have a licence ,pay income tax
If they go above say 20 ,then the income tax inspectors ,etc ,are all involved
If there's a will there's a way ,surely its the suffering of the Dogs that matters ,and 20 Dogs would be enough for any Breeder ,and if theyve more than that number theyre running a business .
Bet