# AKC petition



## mostlytina (Jan 3, 2009)

Join With the AKC to Protect Responsible Small Breeders

I can see both side of the story. I want to stop BYB but "one size fits all" does seem a bit harsh...


----------



## zooeysmom (Aug 1, 2011)

Could someone please explain this petition in layman's terms?


----------



## Zoe's Mom88 (Apr 25, 2011)

I also read this and found it a little confusing. I didn't sign the petition because I wasn't sure what they meant.


----------



## Snowball Pie's Mommi (Oct 16, 2008)

I read through it quickly. I hope our breeders who are SM members can help with feedback.


----------



## Sylie (Apr 4, 2011)

OMG this would eliminate our ability to buy a dog without going to the breeders house. It would also make it impossible for a breeder to have more than four intact females. 

Here is a link about the proposed legislation:

USDA/APHIS Proposed Regulations Affecting Dog Breeders

I am going to sign the AKC petition. This is very important. It was probably intended to stop puppymills and large backyard breeders and internet puppy brokers. The problem is it seriously hurts OUR beloved breeders. It is GOOD for inexperienced breeders who get a couple of dogs and breed them.

Let's post this to FB too.


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

Yep...our government hard at work. As usual instead of going to the experts...ie reputable show breeders...and asking how to word things or what type of legislation might truly help, they just bully forth. If they are trying to stop the atrocities of puppy mills, this is doing just the opposite. 

My understanding is that this legislation will also require all breeders to keep their dogs on wire and in kennels, so they can be inspected and identified. And also that no dogs will be allowed on surfaces that can't be hosed down. All must be kept separate and on cement or wire. No more reputable hobby show breeders keeping them in their house. They can't be on their furniture because that can't be hosed down. But that was just my own interpretation. I very much would like some of our trusted show breeders to let us know for sure what this means.
*
*


----------



## zooeysmom (Aug 1, 2011)

I don't think ANY breeder should have more than 4 intact female dogs! 

Crystal, where did you get the interpretation that they will require dogs to be in cages/kennels?


----------



## Sylie (Apr 4, 2011)

zooeysmom said:


> I don't think ANY breeder should have more than 4 intact female dogs!
> 
> Crystal, where did you get the interpretation that they will require dogs to be in cages/kennels?


An intact female can be a little girl who is earning her championship with no intention to breed her in the immediate future. That is one of the ways in which the propose laws fails to understand and make allowances for common practices of fine breeders.

I see this proposed law as a very serious threat to the future of well-bred pure-bred dogs. But a license for clean well run puppymills and small time BYOBs. We have to fight this or we will never be able to get another puppy from the breeder we love.


----------



## Sylie (Apr 4, 2011)

Crystal&Zoe said:


> Yep...our government hard at work. As usual instead of going to the experts...ie reputable show breeders...and asking how to word things or what type of legislation might truly help, they just bully forth. If they are trying to stop the atrocities of puppy mills, this is doing just the opposite.
> 
> My understanding is that this legislation will also require all breeders to keep their dogs on wire and in kennels, so they can be inspected and identified. And also that no dogs will be allowed on surfaces that can't be hosed down. All must be kept separate and on cement or wire. No more reputable hobby show breeders keeping them in their house. They can't be on their furniture because that can't be hosed down. But that was just my own interpretation. I very much would like some of our trusted show breeders to let us know for sure what this means.


Oh Crystal, I am beside myself. That is exactly what it would do. Why? Because of total lack of knowledge about how reputable breeders work. I have a picture in my head of Champion Miss Demeanor and Champion Page Turner in a wire cage that gets hosed down....It is so much more comforting to think that our brilliant government won't let them lay around on Josy's furniture, or nice comfy pet beds. Morons. I am angry.

Elizabeth, you can read the link I posted above or just google "proposed legislation on dog breeding." It states in easy enough to understand language about the proposed law.


----------



## zooeysmom (Aug 1, 2011)

Am I understanding correctly that you can have more than 4 bitches, but the buyers must come to the home to buy a puppy? But if you want a puppy shipped, the breeder must have 4 or fewer bitches in the home?


----------



## Sylie (Apr 4, 2011)

zooeysmom said:


> Am I understanding correctly that you can have more than 4 bitches, but the buyers must come to the home to buy a puppy? But if you want a puppy shipped, the breeder must have 4 or fewer bitches in the home?


I didn't get that at all. The way I read it is that you must choose to either have an exemption from USDA licensing as a retailer (in which case all buyers must come to your home.) or you must be USDA certified, following the rules of outdoor kenneling, etc. Meaning your precious little show Malts have to live in outdoor cages or on cement:w00t:

It is kind of how you are categorized. If you are considered a "retailer" you are exempt from USDA licensing and inspections. To be a retailer as in pet store you must have people come to your residence to pick up the puppy and you cannot have more than four intact bitches on the premises.

Now some breeders co-own and the co-owned dogs would count against both parties.

Some highly reputable breeders also handle other dogs who may spend some time at their homes...those dogs count against the four bitch rule.

One may think that four bitches is a lot, but when you are trying to establish a line it is hardly out of line.

This law may not be too hard on large breeds who are able to live in outdoor kennels, but for toy dogs who absolutely should be raised in the home, it is just insane.


----------



## michellerobison (Dec 17, 2009)

I think they should reword the wire cages and hard surfaces that must be hosed only....I undestand why they'd say that but if you can keep you breeding stock inside as family pets which I think many reputable breeders would look at them as family pets...why not allow them in the house,as long as it conforms to sanitary conditions suitable for animals...


----------



## LizziesMom (May 4, 2010)

I would just like to throw this in here... Our governmet cut funding to education because we didn't have enough money, yet they are going to fund a bill such as this. How many people will it take to make sure that everyone is following these guidelines? And the only people who will be hurt by it will be reputable breeders. The other breeders will find a way around this... or just not report! I say give the money back to education and let us educate our kids.


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

zooeysmom said:


> I don't think ANY breeder should have more than 4 intact female dogs!


Seriously???? I think you need to talk to some breeders and learn more about it before you decide what the limits should be. Pretty much every breeder I know is over your limit. A serious show breeding program is almost impossible without having about that many or more. 

Just to be very clear you are saying I am at my limit and should not have any more dogs. I have 4 intact females now. I have two champion females, two currently showing, and I have not had a litter in over a year. If I breed my girls again and decide to keep anything, I would be over your limit. So what should I do? Not breed them? Not keep anything for show? 

Frankly, the only breeding programs that keep it smaller than that, that I know of are often BYBs that breed their pets and do not keep anything to show. They have only so many and they breed what they want when they want to, so that they can sell, but since they don't need to worry about improving lines or having show dogs they can set those limits.


----------



## mostlytina (Jan 3, 2009)

This is great. I got this information from someone at my club who is an AKC delegate. I read it... found it was a bit confusing... When I post this, I was hoping someone would explaining a little bit here since we have so many knowledge people here. 

One thing I am still a bit confused... What does it mean by USDA certified "commercial breeders"? Does that mean they have to follow the "commercial breeder guidelines"? Does that mean they have to pay $$ to be a "commercial breeders"? It is just me... "commercial breeder" doesn't sound that great... 

So... the bottom line... AKC is trying to support smaller/hobby breeder with this petition. (to be honest... "hobby breeder" doesn't sound that great to me, either...)...so... this is a good thing...

is it?


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

Sylie said:


> I didn't get that at all. The way I read it is that you must choose to either have an exemption from USDA licensing as a retailer (in which case all buyers must come to your home.) or you must be USDA certified, following the rules of outdoor kenneling, etc. Meaning your precious little show Malts have to live in outdoor cages or on cement:w00t:
> 
> It is kind of how you are categorized. If you are considered a "retailer" you are exempt from USDA licensing and inspections. To be a retailer as in pet store you must have people come to your residence to pick up the puppy and you cannot have more than four intact bitches on the premises.
> 
> ...


That was my understanding too but I wanted to be sure I was understanding correctly. Carina is this interpretation correct?



CloudClan said:


> Seriously???? I think you need to talk to some breeders and learn more about it before you decide what the limits should be. Pretty much every breeder I know is over your limit. A serious show breeding program is almost impossible without having about that many or more.
> 
> Just to be very clear you are saying I am at my limit and should not have any more dogs. I have 4 intact females now. I have two champion females, two currently showing, and I have not had a litter in over a year. If I breed my girls again and decide to keep anything, I would be over your limit. So what should I do? Not breed them? Not keep anything for show?
> 
> Frankly, the only breeding programs that keep it smaller than that, that I know of are often BYBs that breed their pets and do not keep anything to show. They have only so many and they breed what they want when they want to, so that they can sell, but since they don't need to worry about improving lines or having show dogs they can set those limits.


Great post Carina! Not to make zooeysmom feel bad, but this is just the type of reason people who do not have a full understanding of something, like what it takes to be an ethical, reputable show breeder, should not be the ones to write new legislation. They need to go to the people who are right there in the trenches doing the hard work. They need to go to the experienced teachers, reputable show breeders, etc... before trying to legislate something. 

And in all fairness, 4 intact bitches does sound like a lot until you look at the breed (toy breeds only have 1-4 puppies in a litter and therefore the potential of a show hopeful is much less then large breeds who have many more), realize the reputable show breeders retire their bitches fairly young and have only a few litters, (whereas byb's and puppymills breed their bitches over and over again until they no longer can), and reputable show breeders wait until their females are 2 years old before they start breeding them. Byb's and puppymills start breeding as soon as they go into heat. So a reputable show breeder can be trying to finish their bitch's championship and also waiting until she's 2 years old, but still have finished champions who are no longer showing that are having a litter. Put that way you can easily see why 4 intact bitches is not excessive.

And just to be really really clear, I'll add on to what Carina said. The ONLY reason ANYONE should be breeding PERIOD are those that are trying to improve the breed in health, temperament and conformation. All the others are only contributing to the overpopulation of dogs and cats in shelters and rescues across the country.


----------



## zooeysmom (Aug 1, 2011)

CloudClan said:


> Seriously???? I think you need to talk to some breeders and learn more about it before you decide what the limits should be.


If you want to educate, it's more helpful to do it without attitude and arrogance. 



Crystal&Zoe said:


> Great post Carina! Not to make zooeysmom feel bad, but this is just the type of reason people who do not have a full understanding of something, like what it takes to be an ethical, reputable show breeder, should not be the ones to write new legislation. They need to go to the people who are right there in the trenches doing the hard work. They need to go to the experienced teachers, reputable show breeders, etc... before trying to legislate something.
> 
> And just to be really really clear, I'll add on to what Carina said. The ONLY reason ANYONE should be breeding PERIOD are those that are trying to improve the breed in health, temperament and conformation. All the others are only contributing to the overpopulation of dogs and cats in shelters and rescues across the country.


I would never write or vote on legislation before knowing more facts, crystal&zoe. That's why I was asking for someone to break the proposed legislation down into layman's terms so that I can learn. I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, but the AKC article was a bit confusing.

Ha! In my eyes, the people in the trenches are the people who are doing rescue, like Edie and Bronwyne--not show breeders  Which is not to say I don't _appreciate_ ethical breeders who truly care about preserving the breed.


----------



## Sylie (Apr 4, 2011)

I think this is important, so I have read everything I could find. I went to the USDA and found the actual proposal. What it amounts to is redefining the status of "retail stores" which are exempt from licensing and inspection. It was spurred by the increase in dogs being sold over the internet by less than reputable breeders and puppy brokers. We all know how many of those bad guys are out there.

I know that in the past most people saw being licensed as a red flag, indicating that the breeder had perhaps hundreds of dogs.

Where I remain confused is in the fact that the number of intact females has been raised of three to four. I hope some breeders can explain what exemption this law takes away from them. If "hobby breeders" with more that four bitches are exempt from licensing at this time, what will effect their change in status?"

It wouldn't be so terrible if show breeders simply had to obtain a license and be subject to regulation and inspection, except for the requirements of those rules. The wire cages and washable surfaces. No pillows for Malt moms?

The legislators are welcoming comments on the website. This is a proposal and subject to revision. I think that those of us who love pure breeds need to learn as much as possible. I think that if the AKC is sponsoring a petition there must be a threat, however I can't be sure that they have a clear understanding of proposal. It is intended to protect animals, not to harm ethical breeders.

Read it yourself. Regulations.gov


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

zooeysmom said:


> If you want to educate, it's more helpful to do it without attitude and arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Carina is one of the most tactful and humble people on this forum. She has come into many heated threads and was able to put things into perspective being fairly new to show breeding and still remembering all the things she didn't have a full understanding of prior. I think her reply was only sightly strong due to the fact that your comment was absolute, cut and dry...and uneducated. It really did come across that you already had your mind made up where this was concerned. You didn't ask any questions about why four might not be enough. You stated quite emphatically, "I don't think ANY breeder should have more than 4 intact female dogs!". I didn't see anything there asking that was asking questions to get all the facts.

And most of the show breeders are involved in rescue. Edie and Bronwyne work with the AMA rescue which is the parent club in the AKC made up of show breeders. Why not ask Edie what she thinks of this proposed legislation and what she thinks of the AMA breeders? I think that would be a wonderful place to start for you since you seem to have a relationship there. Reputable show breeders are the ones screening potential pet owners to determine if the Maltese breed is indeed the right one for them. They are trying to put the correct puppy with the right person out of that litter. They have contracts stating if for whatever reason they can no longer keep the dog, they will take the dog back to help ensure that none of their dogs end up in shelters or rescues. Just had an example of a poor women who recently died in the matter of months of being diagnosed with a form of cancer I believe and her breeder took Shadow back and will keep Shadow with her until the right home is found. Reputable show breeders are the ones that are working with studies trying to stamp out some of the horrific genetic health issues in our beloved breeds. Show breeders are the ones that painstakingly look at pedigree and lineage trying to breed the best dogs possible. They take off work when their dogs are whelping. They are up all night with puppies who aren't doing well. They doing what they can to socialize their puppies to help prepare them for their future homes. They are going to conformation classes. Taking in seminars to help educate them even more about how to better the breed. They know what it takes to develop a great breeding program and understand it can take years to get the breeding program that they truly desire. So yes, I'll call that 'in the trenches'. I was also referring to teachers who have had years of experience in the public school systems since funding in education was brought up.


----------



## zooeysmom (Aug 1, 2011)

Sylie said:


> Read it yourself. Regulations.gov


Thank you, Sylvia. I'll read through it thoroughly when I get home this afternoon.



Crystal&Zoe said:


> Carina is one of the most tactful and humble people on this forum. She has come into many heated threads and was able to put things into perspective being fairly new to show breeding and still remembering all the things she didn't have a full understanding of prior. I think her reply was only sightly strong due to the fact that your comment was absolute, cut and dry...*and uneducated.* It really did come across that you already had your mind made up where this was concerned. You didn't ask any questions about why four might not be enough. You stated quite emphatically, "I don't think ANY breeder should have more than 4 intact female dogs!". I didn't see anything there asking that was asking questions to get all the facts.
> 
> And most of the show breeders are involved in rescue. Edie and Bronwyne work with the AMA rescue which is the parent club in the AKC made up of show breeders. Why not ask Edie what she thinks of this proposed legislation and what she thinks of the AMA breeders? I think that would be a wonderful place to start for you since you seem to have a relationship there. Reputable show breeders are the ones screening potential pet owners to determine if the Maltese breed is indeed the right one for them. They are trying to put the correct puppy with the right person out of that litter. *They have contracts stating if for whatever reason they can no longer keep the dog, they will take the dog back to help ensure that none of their dogs end up in shelters or rescues*. Just had an example of a poor women who recently died in the matter of months of being diagnosed with a form of cancer I believe and her breeder took Shadow back and will keep Shadow with her until the right home is found. Reputable show breeders are the ones that are working with studies trying to stamp out some of the horrific genetic health issues in our beloved breeds. Show breeders are the ones that painstakingly look at pedigree and lineage trying to breed the best dogs possible. They take off work when their dogs are whelping. They are up all night with puppies who aren't doing well. They doing what they can to socialize their puppies to help prepare them for their future homes. They are going to conformation classes. Taking in seminars to help educate them even more about how to better the breed. They know what it takes to develop a great breeding program and understand it can take years to get the breeding program that they truly desire. So yes, I'll call that 'in the trenches'. I was also referring to teachers who have had years of experience in the public school systems since funding in education was brought up.


Your posts to me come off as a tad disrespectful, Crystal. That might not be how you mean them to, but I'm letting you know that's how I feel.

You may not know that I was recently burned by a "show breeder." This breeder is highly respected on SM and yet, she was not honest about the my new puppy's temperament and when things didn't work out, she did not offer to take him back (unless I wanted to lose all of my money), nor was it in the signed contract. Not only did I lose a lot of $$$, but I went through a lot of stress and heartache (which my SM friends helped me get through).


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

zooeysmom said:


> Thank you, Sylvia. I'll read through it thoroughly when I get home this afternoon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm truly sorry my posts are coming across disrespectful. Not my intention at all. And I'm sorry for your bad experience with a show breeder. I've had mine as well. If you ever have time to go back and read any of my older posts, you will know that I have for years consistently said that not all show breeders are ethical. I've unfortunately offended some very dear people here on SM that really love certain breeders that I do not feel are ethical. They are however considered reputable in the aspect that they are showing (well some are) and that they know how to consistently produce beautiful and healthy puppies. But these breeders will continue to be popular here on SM since they produce a look that certain people want. I have no idea which breeder you had your bad experience with and I'm not asking. But since you mentioned temperament I have a feeling it may very well be the breeder I had my bad experience with. Although in my case it was not a puppy. It had to do with a retiree. But my feeling is when you have a breeding program that is large enough that it can support you or is large enough that you have to hire in others to help care for the dogs, then imo there is indeed a very real risk of that breeder being nothing more then a high class puppy mill. And sadly, in all walks of life, you will have the good and the bad. There are some really great doctors out there and then there are some really bad ones. But you still need to go to a doctor when you are sick or injured. You just have to find a good one. :thumbsup:


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

zooeysmom said:


> If you want to educate, it's more helpful to do it without attitude and arrogance.
> 
> 
> Ha! In my eyes, the people in the trenches are the people who are doing rescue, like Edie and Bronwyne--not show breeders  Which is not to say I don't _appreciate_ ethical breeders who truly care about preserving the breed.


I have been in the trenches doing rescue. Bronwyne and Edie are my heros as well, in part because I have been there and know exactly what it takes to give as much as they do. As a side note, in the years I was continually fostering I had more rescues in my house than I have intact dogs now. It was my experience fostering that led me to understand just how important a role there is for ethical breeders. 

I find it interesting that you feel Crystal was being disrespectful to you, since your accusation that I had "attitude and arrogance" came off as pretty disrespectful to me. And while I do not think in any way Crystal was trying to be disrespectful to you, I do feel you very much intended to be so to me. 

I am sorry about your bad experiences with show breeders. Not all show breeders are equal. I have tried to make that point many times on SM.


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

Crystal&Zoe said:


> Carina is one of the most tactful and humble people on this forum. She has come into many heated threads and was able to put things into perspective being fairly new to show breeding and still remembering all the things she didn't have a full understanding of prior. I think her reply was only sightly strong due to the fact that your comment was absolute, cut and dry...and uneducated. It really did come across that you already had your mind made up where this was concerned. You didn't ask any questions about why four might not be enough. You stated quite emphatically, "I don't think ANY breeder should have more than 4 intact female dogs!". I didn't see anything there asking that was asking questions to get all the facts.
> 
> *And most of the show breeders are involved in rescue. Edie and Bronwyne work with the AMA rescue which is the parent club in the AKC made up of show breeders. Why not ask Edie what she thinks of this proposed legislation and what she thinks of the AMA breeders? I think that would be a wonderful place to start for you since you seem to have a relationship there.* Reputable show breeders are the ones screening potential pet owners to determine if the Maltese breed is indeed the right one for them. They are trying to put the correct puppy with the right person out of that litter. They have contracts stating if for whatever reason they can no longer keep the dog, they will take the dog back to help ensure that none of their dogs end up in shelters or rescues. Just had an example of a poor women who recently died in the matter of months of being diagnosed with a form of cancer I believe and her breeder took Shadow back and will keep Shadow with her until the right home is found. Reputable show breeders are the ones that are working with studies trying to stamp out some of the horrific genetic health issues in our beloved breeds. Show breeders are the ones that painstakingly look at pedigree and lineage trying to breed the best dogs possible. They take off work when their dogs are whelping. They are up all night with puppies who aren't doing well. They doing what they can to socialize their puppies to help prepare them for their future homes. They are going to conformation classes. Taking in seminars to help educate them even more about how to better the breed. They know what it takes to develop a great breeding program and understand it can take years to get the breeding program that they truly desire. So yes, I'll call that 'in the trenches'. I was also referring to teachers who have had years of experience in the public school systems since funding in education was brought up.


Thank you, Crystal, for your comments and support as "an outsider looking in." In my humble opinion numbers and limits just don't work because EVERY situation is different. There are pet owners who should not have two spayed/neutered dogs just as much as there are breeders who should not have multiple intact dogs. And, honestly, I'm not sure why there is an emphasis on intact status. If someone cannot care properly for more than four intact girls they probably are unable to care properly for more than four spayed girls. While the difference is that spayed girls cannot reproduce, level of care is still level of care.

Carina has stated quite well why it might be beneficial for small hobby breeders (I define "hobby breeders" as those breeders who rarely breed and their prime motivation for breeding is to produce their next generation of quality show dogs) to have more than four intact females.

What saddens me is that when people hear the word "breeder" they tend to first think of the person who breeds for commercial purposes only and support laws that will put controls (in some cases much needed controls) on those breeders. But the breeding world is a big world and the majority of breeders are good, decent, ethical, honest people who take what they do very seriously. These proposed regulations will punish the masses for the few.

I purposely highlighted Crystal's comments about rescue because of the truth to those statements. Edie co-chairs AMA Rescue with Judy Crowe. Judy is a breeder, not actively breeding right now, but a breeder nonetheless. Where would we be without her expertise given the number of pregnant girls who have come into AMA Rescue over the past year or so? Judy welcomed those girls into her home, whelped those litters and raised the puppies. Breeders do this all too often but rarely get the credit or accolades they deserve.

Someone, maybe Sylvia, also brought up the fact that ownership includes co-ownership. I do co-own an intact female who is not living with me. However, under these proposed regs she gets counted as one of my intact females. Does that make sense? Not to me.

In summary, I also support the AKC's position on these proposed regulations. Repeating what I said at the beginning of this post, number and limits do not work because every situation is different.


----------

