# More Onerous Legislation - Texans Beware



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

Hearings start tomorrow for HB 1451 in Texas. Here is a link to the actual bill for anyone interested in reading it: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/pdf/HB01451I.pdf


It's so broadly written that any animal enforcement officer could put whatever spin they want on it. Any single complaint allows an animal control officer to enter the premises unannounced at any time to investigate the complaint which could be made by a vindictive neighbor, another breeder, a potential puppy buyer turned away by the breeder? The licensing fees section does not specify the fee which could turn out to be so costly as to become financially prohibitive for all but the mills who are mass producing puppies. Directory listing every licensed breeder including address to be made public? This is an absolute invasion of a person's right to privacy. The minimum standards of care make no sense. Exercise area must be a solid surface with drainage? Does that include or exclude grass? Dogs must be outside for at least an hour per day but must be provided with shelter from the elements ... so put coated dogs out in a concrete (solid surface vs. grass) run with a dog house for shelter? This is exactly why everyone needs to take the time to read proposed legislation before supporting or opposing legislation supposedly written to get rid of puppy mills. The Texas bill is intended to impact commercial breeders and defines a commercial breeder as anyone owning or keeping more than 10 intact females. Some of the most ethical, reputable breeders have more than 10 intact females. They are not by any stretch of the imagination commercial breeders, i.e., puppy mills.

AKC opposes this bill - American Kennel Club - Hearing Tuesday March 15th on TX Breeder Bill

HSUS supports this bill - https://secure.humanesociety.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=4950


Read the bill, read the position statements, think about it, then decide. Keep in mind that much more of this sort of restrictive legislation and none of us will be able to own the dog of our dreams that has been raised with great care and great love.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

I didn't read the whole bill, just the standards of care and confinement section starting on page 16. Looking at this from a dog's perspective, looks like a great bill.

If a "reputable" breeder can't meet minimum standards of care and confinement, that's a real problem. 

It bothers me that "humaneness" is having to be legislated.


----------



## michellerobison (Dec 17, 2009)

I read it through and it sounds like a vast improvement over the "nothing" they do now.
Once it's in place,I would think it can be interpreted to fit breeding operations of different sizes from large scale to smaller scale show or exibiting breeders.
I think it's initially set up to give a standard of care in which to work from.

All I can say is it's about time they do something for these poor creatures... before this they had no standrards and it was up to the discretion of the animal enforcement officer,now it's pretty clearly spelled out.

They'll need to work out the fine details.
Like concrete run areas with drainage....that compared to many who are in muddy run areas, no drainage... with inches of feces and urine is what they're getting at.
Our shelter had concrete run areas w/ drainage and an area of grass farther at the end where they can play and lay down and roll.

Any legislation can have it's problems that can be worked out, but it sure beats nothing at all.

It looks to be aimed at large scale mass breeding operations,not smaller scale show and exibiting breeders. I thought it read 50 intact females,which I would think would constitute large scale breeding operations.


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

michellerobison said:


> I read it through and it sounds like a vast improvement over the "nothing" they do now.
> Once it's in place,I would think it can be interpreted to fit breeding operations of different sizes from large scale to smaller scale show or exibiting breeders.
> I think it's initially set up to give a standard of care in which to work from.
> 
> ...


There is a limitation of no more than 50 intact females, but the bill defines a "commercial breeder" as ANYONE having 11 or more intact females over the age of 6 months. The bill does not state whether that number includes females owned by others that are living with the breeder while being shown nor does it state whether that number includes females co-owned by the breeder but living with the co-owner. Put into perspective for a show breeder situation, this magic number of 11 would include young females growing up for show, females currently being shown, and adult females who will be bred. If a breeder has 2 growing up for show, 2 being shown and 7 who he/she plans to breed then that constitutes a commercial breeder. Having 7 females for breeding may seem like a lot at first glance but most breeders do not breed every female every year and generally do not breed them before they are 18 mos. old. So in the case of a Maltese breeder who may breed 3 females in any given year that may amount to anywhere on average from 4-9 puppies. A few of the puppies may be held back as show potentials, a puppy or 2 may go to another show breeder and the remainder would be available to a pet home. So available pets could be anywhere from 0-5. For those who want a well-bred puppy from an ethical responsible breeder they'll be waiting a very long time. Those who want a puppy right now will turn to pet stores, newspaper ads and the internet. It happens all the time.

Many parent breed clubs have a Code of Ethics that is very specific as to requirements for health testing any dog before it can be bred. Dogs do not get final CERF or OFA clearance for many health issues until they are 2 years old. So these breeders hold females until final clearance, then show them, then breed them. This bill puts the responsible breeders of those large breed dogs who need final clearance on issues like hip dysplasia in an impossible situation.

I do not know one single person who is in support of puppy mills. But legislation that hurts the ethical breeders far more than the puppy mills makes no sense. Better to educate than to legislate.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

Mary, we're talking about how the dogs are treated for goodness sakes!!! If this applies to reputable breeders, so be it.


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

vjw said:


> Mary, we're talking about how the dogs are treated for goodness sakes!!! If this applies to reputable breeders, so be it.


Bills like this, with compliance rules mandating things like drainage be installed in all kennel areas, you would do away with the ethical home breeders who raise pups and moms in their homes and end up with ONLY large scale breeding operations who have "separate" i.e. outdoor kennels. 

The people writing these bills do not understand how ethical breeders operate, they base the writing only on the abuses of the large scale operations and try to fix the rules to bring those large scale operations into compliance. That does not put them out of business, in a way it actually encourages them. 

Many of the biggest puppymills in the country could afford to accommodate their facilities to comply with a bill such as this. Not so, with the home breeders. People assume bills like this will put the puppymills out of business, but in fact they lump all breeders together and the only ones who can afford to do some of the requirements are the ones who are making large profits from breeding huge numbers of litters. 

Think about it, why would ethical breeders be so opposed to some of these mandates? It certainly isn't because they want to protect the mills.


----------



## Lacie's Mom (Oct 11, 2006)

Carina (and Mary),

I 100% agree. Maybe you have to be a breeder, or know show breeders, to truly understand the plight that this type of legislation will put both reputable breeders as well as dogs in.

I agree that this will leave us with ONLY the puppymills.:smilie_tischkante::smpullhair:


----------



## michellerobison (Dec 17, 2009)

Eduction doesn't seem to be working...how many years has the battle to eradicate and educate been going on...to no avail....look at all the mills and BYBer's out there...making it bad for ethical breeders...

Maybe breeders will have to educate the legislators...unfortunately...

They might have to form their own lobby and go to their state capitals and educate legislators on the difference between how large scale mega mills work and how ethical breeders (those who exibit or show) work. 

The professional show arena has a lot of money ,at their disposal ,to use,sponsors,breeders,vendors,advertisiers,publishers and patrons....anyone connected with and or making money from dogs shows....

Obviously,legislators have no idea what the difference is between BYS's,mills and ethical show breeders.... they're two completely different entities..

If legislation gets written w/o education,we end up w/ chaos. 

If legislation ,like this gets struck down and nothing comes in to replace it,we have worse....unregulated suffering continues.

We've relied on common decency to eradicate the mills and BYBers and bad breeders to no avail...

We will still have puppymills,but they're not going away sadly,since they're going to exist,despite all common decency...there needs to be legislation in place that protects the animals as best it can.

Once legislation goes into effect,it can be modified. The law is a living thing,in a way,it constantly changes,evolves and sometimes improves...Isn't it better than nothing at all,which is what we have now?

If there is no legislation ,no laws to start out with,there is no legal precident to refer to use and enforce...

Livestock for slaughter get treated better than breeding animals for pet stores...


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

michellerobison said:


> Eduction doesn't seem to be working...how many years has the battle to eradicate and educate been going on...to no avail....look at all the mills and BYBer's out there...making it bad for ethical breeders...
> 
> Maybe breeders will have to educate the legislators...unfortunately...
> 
> ...


I understand your passion against the Mills. I share it. My second Maltese was dumped with a rescue group after her breeding years ended at a BYB/Mill. It was then that I became interested, grew to understand the plight of dogs in mills. I was not aware of the issues before. 

I think it is not true about education not working. I think like many things it takes a LONG time to educate the public, but for sure, there are more people learning about Mills. However, education from groups like Peta push the idea that no one should buy from any breeder. And again lump all breeders in together. 

You know how the Mills began? The government, USDA, actually encouraged poor farmers across the Midwest to begin these kinds of operations. This type of legislation as it sweeps across the country will finish what they started, putting small scale show/hobby breeders out of business in favor of larger scale commercial breeding operations. So, I disagree that any law is better than no law, not when the law comes with such a stark unintended (or perhaps it is intended by some) consequence.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

michellerobison said:


> Eduction doesn't seem to be working...how many years has the battle to eradicate and educate been going on...to no avail....look at all the mills and BYBer's out there...making it bad for ethical breeders...
> 
> *Maybe breeders will have to educate the legislators...unfortunately...*
> 
> ...


 
Trust me. There's huge lobbying groups already in place. (Cough, cough, cough)


----------



## michellerobison (Dec 17, 2009)

I don't want to be mean but a breeder getting $3,000-
$6,000 per pup ,x 4-9 pups per year,...couldn't afford to build to comply with better run area and separate accomodations for their dogs?

Those breeders who have their dogs live with them,I would think would be exempt from such requirements if they can show the dogs are kept in adequately clean areas w/ enough area for the dogs to feel like they have their own space.

I seriously doubt any enforcement officer would go into any of the breeders on this forum and tell them their accomodations are inadequate if they have them raised in their homes where they're warm,safe,well fed,well vetted,groomed,plenty of room,socialized,well loved and played with.......obviously part of the family.

The breeders on this forum have plenty of piccies posted of their pups and adults and all look very much loved and taken care of... It would be hard to accuse them of not treating their dogs well.

Having worked with animal shelters,I know how hard it is to enforce adequate standards and how low those standards of care really are.I've seen some atrocious dog houses or what could laughingly be called "adequate shelter" believe me,no one on this forum would have to worry about the law saying what they have is inadequate.


More pets stores are buying "designer" dogs to sell,so I don't see education working, at least not fast enough for these poor animals...

So I don't think that no law is better. I think this dog would agree.










I think the spirit of the law is intended to prevent this... not to hurt small scale show breeders.

I would think stopping the large threat is important.

Kinda like airport security,yes it's a real pain,it's an inconvenience,it takes longer...it costs us more,but I'd rather go through that then get blown up...


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

$3,000 - $6,000 per puppy? Really? What breed or breeds are you talking about? And in what part of the country? WV just failed to pass a law similar to what is being introduced in TX but with more specific restrictions ... the one that quickly comes to mind is that the exercise area must be impervious solid surface with drainage and must be disinfected daily. That means no carpet, no hardwood floors, no grass. And there were no provisions for the small hobby breeder. The proposed bill applied to anyone with 12 or more intact dogs, whether male, female, or any combination of the two. If I had that many dogs I would have to build a separate building for my dogs in order to comply with the law as my entire house has hardwood flooring and hardwood is not considered impervious. Furthermore, I could not install appropriate drainage inside my house. Unfortunately my entire back yard is within a 100-foot buffer zone to wetland and I am prohibited from building anywhere but up. So I'd be done with breeding because I would not meet the requirements for applying for a breeding license. Plain and simple. It would be one more loss for the good guys and another winfall for the mills.

Most importantly, I have no desire to have my dogs living anywhere but underfoot and will only raise puppies the same way.


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

$3-6 grand per pet they sell? Seriously? Where did you get that number? Certainly not from the folks I know. Most of the folks I know breeding show dogs do not come close to breaking even. Between the costs associated with showing and whelping even the 1.5 grand they may get on a good day doesn't come close to covering their expenses. In other breeds, the numbers are even lower, but the show fees, and the whelping expenses are the same. 

But I think you were missing my point anyway. My point was that in order to have "drainage" as some of these bills suggest, you would have to build an external kennel. I can tell you that my dining room, sure doesn't offer me the possibility of adding such drainage. This bill offers no exemption like the one you mention for the people on this forum. I don't see where you see such an exemption. So what these bills are actually supporting is a "facility" where they can offer that. This means could not be raised in the home. 

The bill does limit people to 50 intact bitches. But a group like the HUNT corporation would just have a second facility a farther piece down the road to come into compliance with such a regulation. Run by a different manager. 

As Lynne said, perhaps you have to actually show to understand the staggering costs associated with showing dogs and breeding them. 

The picture you posted is horrific. When I fostered girls from the mills in Missouri I also was positively heartbroken. Believe me, I have been there, but my biggest fear as I have tried to explain is that bills are written in places like this, the ones that end up with exemptions from regulations are not the little guys, the breeders we should be supporting, the ones who end up with exemptions or work-arounds are the ones selling to the pet stores.


----------



## michellerobison (Dec 17, 2009)

You missed it where I said I doubt anyone would say the breeders on this forum and those who breed keep their dogs like the ones on this forum,they keep them as family members would be effected

I'm not saying you should put in drainage holes in your house. I'm not saying you have to build a separate building...

I'm saying the law us just a starting point. It can be ammended for smaller scale breeders can't it? Especially ones who have their dogs in their homes as part of their family?
Can't an exercise area be a yard like many of us do,let them in the yard to run around and we clean up after them?

Why not lobby for ammendments in the law for smaller scale operations instead of striking it down and saying "no law" to protect animals? No law is basically what we have now....

Why not lobby for a new law written to cover show breeders? Show breeders aren't large scale operations like huge puppymills,they should be covered differently...

You're taking the bits you don't like or that you assume will effect you when it may not ,and trashing the whole law.

If you don't have that many dogs and it doesn't effect you and it probably doesn't effect the majority of small scale show breeders...why are you getting testy w/ me about it?

Arent we both on the same side? If we could end puppymills,we would... if we can't,can't we hope legislation would regulate it so less animals suffer?

Laws are interpreted in many ways,not just one way.... these seem to be more like guidelines open to interpretation to fit individual situations.


A similar thing happened when the conceiled carry came into effect,people got up in arms thinking people would be running around toting guns all over the place and shooting people. Crime has actually gone down in states w/ conceiled carry.

They didn't bother to find out that the requirements were quite strict, FBI background checks, medical and pych back ground checks,classes and if you even had a misdemneanor shotlifting charge as a juvenile lifting a pack of gum,you could be disqualified...

I worry more about unlicensed gun carriers,not licensed ones...


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

Speaking of exemptions, the TX bill does have an exemption for the prelicensing inspection. Anyone licensed under the Animal Welfare Act does not need to have a pre-licensing inspection. But guess what? The AWA license requirement is the USDA license. And how many times has it been said on this forum that anyone on the USDA list is a puppymill?? Great, so puppymills get exempted from the prelicensing inspection ... but not the hobby/show breeder. Go figure.


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

Michelle, here's the bottom line. Anyone with 11 or more intact dogs must get a commercial breeding license. If I had 11 intact dogs I would have to BY LAW apply for a commercial breeding license. I don't meet the requirements so cannot get the license. No license, no breeding, and no right to own that many dogs. So while you may think it can all get worked out after the fact, I will be forced to get rid of the dogs. Period. End of discussion. Read the bill.

Do you think that reasonable people aren't trying to amend the bill? Do you think that I'd rather sit back, say "all or nothing" and run the risk that the bill passes? Reasonable people are begging and pleading for amendments. Sometimes the bills get amended and sometimes they don't. Wyoming just passed a reasonable bill, one that started out onerous but was amended to be reasonable. That didn't happen in WV. Thankfully the bill failed to pass.


----------



## michellerobison (Dec 17, 2009)

Lobby to change the inequities of the laws...instead of taking it as a personal attack on hobby breeders..
Laws can only be changed if someone starts that process.
I don't know all the regulations,ins and outs.
You know it better than I do,then work to change it,not strike a law down on it's face that could at the least help reduce suffering?


----------



## michellerobison (Dec 17, 2009)

MaryH said:


> Michelle, here's the bottom line. Anyone with 11 or more intact dogs must get a commercial breeding license. If I had 11 intact dogs I would have to BY LAW apply for a commercial breeding license. I don't meet the requirements so cannot get the license. No license, no breeding, and no right to own that many dogs. So while you may think it can all get worked out after the fact, I will be forced to get rid of the dogs. Period. End of discussion. Read the bill.
> 
> Do you think that reasonable people aren't trying to amend the bill? Do you think that I'd rather sit back, say "all or nothing" and run the risk that the bill passes? Reasonable people are begging and pleading for amendments. Sometimes the bills get amended and sometimes they don't. Wyoming just passed a reasonable bill, one that started out onerous but was amended to be reasonable. That didn't happen in WV. Thankfully the bill failed to pass.


 
You said the one in Wyoming started as an onerous one and was amended to be reasonable so there is hope of ammendements. I never said people weren't trying,I just wasn't seeing that in the posts...

So you're jumping on me...why?


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm not jumping on anyone, especially you. All I said in my original post is "here's an example of an onerous bill." If it passes as is the hobby breeder feels the most impact despite the fact that the bill is intended to impact the puppymills. Any bill like this would have to be amended BEFORE it goes to the floor for a vote. That did work in Wyoming. That did not work in West Virginia. Wyoming ended up with a reasonable bill. West Virginia ended up with nothing. Other states have ended up with no amendments and a bill that passed. Missouri recently passed Proposition B. The breeder hit hardest is the small hobby breeder. And now there are bills flying all around the Missouri senate and house to repeal and/or amend the bill. What a mess!


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

I didn't see it as Mary saying it's a personal attack on hobby breeders, but simply stating what it means TO those small exhibitor breeders who are not in it to make the almighty buck or mass produce stock for the pet stores. It is much more difficult to ammend after a bill like that is passed. Groups like PETA will do all they can to keep any ammendments from passing.


----------



## michellerobison (Dec 17, 2009)

I hope they pass legislation that won't hurt the hobby show breeders as most are working to maintain standards of the breed and to show the Maltese or any breed at it's best.
We really do need standards of keeping and raising dogs for sale.

I didn't percieve it as a bill to hurt small scale breeders but maybe it does.

Sadly we just can't rely on human decency to prevail,not when there's so much money to be made in mills.

That's all I was getting at.


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

Michelle,

Thank you for continuing to read and respond in this thread. I certainly did not intend to appear "testy" in my responses to you.

You were absolutely right when you said we are on the same side in our ultimate concern being for the dogs. I hope that folks like us can come together on these issues so that we support efforts to protect animal welfare and promote ethical breeding practices.


----------



## michellerobison (Dec 17, 2009)

I know none of us would be on this forum if we didn't love our dogs and all creatures... That I do know.
We all want to see the best for the animals on this planet..
That I can say about everyone on the forum, breeder,rescuer,pet owner...animal lovers all.
Hugs!


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

Just to comment on another aspect of this legislation that I think is upsetting for smaller scale show/hobby breeders is the requirement that their address be publicly listed. 

I know that many breeders prefer to stick to P.O. Boxes in even our AMA membership directory because they do not want to let just anyone know where they live. I know I personally, do not like publicly advertising to strangers in my neighborhood that I have un-fixed dogs in my house as someone could decide to steal my beloved dogs and use them for profit. I know that we have had enough burglaries after electronic equipment. My car was broken into in my driveway to steal a computer bag (empty at the time). Imagine how much more personal a threat someone who recognizes the value of these dogs would be.

The other threat publishing publicly breeder addresses could pose is becoming a target for some anti-breeder PETA member who decides NIMBY (not in my back yard). If you think that cannot happen consider what they do at dog shows around the country. 








http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2009-02-09-peta-westminster-kkk-protest_N.htm


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

I really don't think this type of legislation applies to breeders who raise their dogs underfoot. There would be a problem however if the breeder is keeping dogs in small cages 24/7, even if it is in the breeder's house.

Show breeders and rescue groups have strict requirements for the puppy/dog purchaser, so I still don't understand all the controversy when there's animal welfare requirements for them.

Imagine the outcry on this forum if we were to know a breeder is letting a dog go to a home where they know the dog is going to be kept in a small cage 24 hours a day. No heating and air conditioning. No exercise. No training. No veterinary visits. No regular grooming. No spay/neuter contract and the owner is going to breed the dogs every possible heat cycle. Further, the owner can euthanize the dog themselves whenever they want. 

From reading the "standards of care and confinement" part of the bill mentioned in the OP, this is what the legislation is trying to prevent.


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

Joy, this bill applies to ALL BREEDERS. Do you think that someone owning 11 dogs cannot raise them underfoot? If I was at home 24/7 I could certainly have 11 dogs living underfoot. But not if this bill passes as written because among other things I cannot install drainage in my home. Read the entire bill. As written, it applies to all breeders owning 11 or more intact bitches.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

MaryH said:


> Joy, this bill applies to ALL BREEDERS. Do you think that someone owning 11 dogs cannot raise them underfoot? If I was at home 24/7 I could certainly have 11 dogs living underfoot. But not if this bill passes as written because among other things I cannot install drainage in my home. Read the entire bill. As written, it applies to all breeders owning 11 or more intact bitches.


 
Okay, I read the entire bill. The part that talks about drainage is talking about the one hour a day exercise area. I would think that for a maltese in a house that if they are exercised in a large x-pen with puppy pads covering the floor any "animal welfare" person would think that would be more than adequate, and would think it cleaner than a concrete floor with a drain.

I googled this bill to see what breeders are all up in arms about and all I could find was references to the veterinary bills putting them out of business.

If this is what this is about, then this is a problem too. If breeders can't afford veterinary bills and humane treatment for their animals, then they don't need to be breeding.

People try to give me animals just about every week. Last week it was minature donkeys. We live on a farm and if I could afford more animals, I'd have more. We don't take on any more animals because we can't afford to pay for more vet. bills, farrier bills, food expenses, etc. for additional animals. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Lacie's Mom (Oct 11, 2006)

Joy -- although you might think that "common sense" should prevail about this bill (and other legislation), the bill is written with specific wording that could, and probably will, be taken literally. *BEFORE* the bill passes, wording needs to be put into the bill to provide for small hobby/show breeders. It is wrong to pass legislation and *THEN*, after the fact, think that "oops -- that's what the bill says, so that's what we're going to enforce" even if it makes no sense at all.

As we all know, it's not the law abiding citizens that look for loopholes, but the people that are trying to take advantage of the system. This is true for any part of life. So, in this case, the puppy mills will find the loopholes and the reputable hobby/show breeders will be put out of business, imho.

Even if I agree with a bill in principle, I need to make certain that the wording supports the principle and that *NOTHING* is left to *ASSUMPTION*.


----------



## Aarianne (Jul 22, 2005)

Sadly, this is just like the by-laws already in place around where I live. Each municipality has the power to control their own kennel licensing around here (I think thanks to the Animal Pedigree Act). Unfortunately nobody said anything when they quietly passed the by-laws regarding the 3 dogs per household limit and the kennel licensing by-laws and now we're stuck with them it seems until breeders one day band together and do something about them. 

So it's a little worse here actually... since you're required to obtain a municipal kennel license the second you pass the 3 dog limit and hobby show breeders with 4 dogs in their home are lumped into the same category as large scale commercial breeders and puppy mills with kennel buildings. In most cases, rescuers are also lumped in there too. 

Every municipality has slightly different requirements, but out of the 20+ I looked into around here, I believe all require impermeable flooring (many also require impermeable walls), and all but maybe 2 specify that a 5 minute self-drain be installed as a plumbing fixture in the room where the dogs are kept.

Some are so backwards that they don't even allow breeding within your home or the keeping of more than 3 dogs there... you must have a detached kennel building--where the dogs don't receive as much socialization as in a house, their barking cannot be as well controlled, etc.

It's much better to completely stop laws like the one proposed in Texas from being passed than to get stuck with them and try to convince a government to adjust them later. Currently so many breeders seem to fly under the radar here (without licensing because they would be unable to meet the requirements without moving or spending large amounts of money) and don't want to bring attention to themselves, so they are unwilling to get involved in fighting the by-laws. However, their addresses and contact info is increasingly plastered all over the internet if they show... so if animal control officers were diligent in every municipality, they'd catch them.  And for what? I'm sure most love their dogs incredibly and take great care of them. They're clearly not a nuisance to neighbours or their neighbours would have reported them already.

And it's not so easy to "fly under the radar" as so many municipalities around here send out canvassers door-to-door to push pet licensing and even if someone isn't home, they are told to take note of any signs of dogs or cats, such as food/water bowls, barking coming from inside the house or yard, excrement in yard, etc. and it's reported back to the municipality and an animal control officer follows up. 

I have to wonder where these municipalities think people should get their dogs from when they're essentially pushing out hobby show breeders and saying yes to large scale kennel operations in the area? It's already clear that most maltese pets that people get around here come from brokers/pet stores/mills and BYBs. The BYBs have no problem flying under the radar either--it's even easier for them since their names, addresses, and names of dogs aren't being published in show results online.

:smpullhair:


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

Aarianne said:


> Sadly, this is just like the by-laws already in place around where I live. Each municipality has the power to control their own kennel licensing around here (I think thanks to the Animal Pedigree Act). Unfortunately nobody said anything when they quietly passed the by-laws regarding the 3 dogs per household limit and the kennel licensing by-laws and now we're stuck with them it seems until breeders one day band together and do something about them.
> 
> So it's a little worse here actually... since you're required to obtain a municipal kennel license the second you pass the 3 dog limit and hobby show breeders with 4 dogs in their home are lumped into the same category as large scale commercial breeders and puppy mills with kennel buildings. In most cases, rescuers are also lumped in there too.
> 
> ...


Thank you for posting from the pet owner perspective. I don't think many people realize that so many of the bills being proposed around the country (and apparently around Canada, too) have a trickle down effect and much of the ultimate effect will depend on the outlook and interpretation of local animal control officers. Many cities, towns and counties in the U.S. have the same stringent requirements as your municipality regarding the number of dogs one is allowed to own even as spayed/neutered pets. I often wonder if the same people who are in favor of a 2- or 3-dog limit would also support a 2- or 3-child limit? As for the Texas bill, in case anyone missed it, there is a clause that says that municipalities within the state will have the right to be MORE stringent in their kennel permit requirements, but not less.


----------



## edelweiss (Apr 23, 2010)

MaryH said:


> Thank you for posting from the pet owner perspective. I don't think many people realize that so many of the bills being proposed around the country (and apparently around Canada, too) have a trickle down effect and much of the ultimate effect will depend on the outlook and interpretation of local animal control officers. Many cities, towns and counties in the U.S. have the same stringent requirements as your municipality regarding the number of dogs one is allowed to own even as spayed/neutered pets. I often wonder if the same people who are in favor of a 2- or 3-dog limit would also support a 2- or 3-child limit? As for the Texas bill, in case anyone missed it, there is a clause that says that municipalities within the state will have the right to be MORE stringent in their kennel permit requirements, but not less.


:goodpost:

I don't presently live in the US but I do know that once laws are passed ammendments becoming almost an impossibility.
I also know that like a lot of political posturing truth is often mixed with non-truth (or pork is added to a bill that SEEMS essentially good)---thereby making it distasteful in the end. It would be a very sad day for us IF hobby/show breeders end up paying the price while puppy-mills/commercial breeders continue to flood the market w/inferior stock. Where would we get our lovely, breed-standard, good tempered, maltese? Scary!
What can we as ordinary citizens do to make sure this doesn't happen?


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

Here's a link to a fact sheet about this particular bill. I'm posting this because I think it is important that the Texas Veterinary Medical Association now supports this bill when they had previously opposed one which they thought was unfair.

http://www.thln.org/mcms_site/uploads/documents/3B686A06-3048-C277-1181816B42DD4EEF.pdf


----------



## edelweiss (Apr 23, 2010)

Who is impacted by the bill?
The bill only impacts “commercial breeders,” defined as persons or entities which possess 11 or more adult intact female dogs or cats and are engaged in the business of breeding those animals and selling their offspring. Small breeders who have 10 or fewer female breeding dogs will not be affected by the bill. *No pet stores or other retail outlets selling dogs or cats will be affected.*

Reading this article---it ALL sounds good to the novice & seems to protect the animals---except the part where pet stores are ALLOWED to continue to sell dogs/cats!!! Why on earth would they be excluded and the small/hobby show breeder penalized? 
Also, where is the provision for enforcing this law over those who sell over the internet? This seems to be a huge issue, and would be very slippery to enforce.

I was also disgusted by the fact that the governing body (USDA's office/inspector general BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION) ignore present regulations allowing this sort of thing to continue in commercial breeding facilities. Who is to say that won't continue to happen? If they can't keep the rules that exist, why are they making new ones? This sounds like Greece---lots of law, no inforcements.
I believe everyone on this forum is for the protection of animals/their rights, etc. That is something we stand on together. The issue here lies not on IF but HOW?


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

edelweiss said:


> Who is impacted by the bill?
> The bill only impacts “commercial breeders,” defined as persons or entities which possess 11 or more adult intact female dogs or cats and are engaged in the business of breeding those animals and selling their offspring. Small breeders who have 10 or fewer female breeding dogs will not be affected by the bill. *No pet stores or other retail outlets selling dogs or cats will be affected.*
> 
> Reading this article---it ALL sounds good to the novice & seems to protect the animals---except the part where pet stores are ALLOWED to continue to sell dogs/cats!!! Why on earth would they be excluded and the small/hobby show breeder penalized?
> ...


 
I agree that pet stores are part of the problem, but why not begin with the root of the problem of pet store puppies and at least try to make sure the puppies and their sires and dams are treated somewhat humanely in the mills?

It really troubles me that exhibitor breeders who have more than 11 puppies are lobbying against these bills. By looking at this particluar bill, I would think if they were treating their 11+ breeding dogs humanely, they wouldn't be concerned about legislation such as this. This particular bill in my opinion is VERY minimal regarding humane treatment of dogs.


----------



## edelweiss (Apr 23, 2010)

vjw said:


> I agree that pet stores are part of the problem, but why not begin with the root of the problem of pet store puppies and at least try to make sure the puppies and their sires and dams are treated somewhat humanely in the mills?
> 
> It really troubles me that exhibitor breeders who have more than 11 puppies are lobbying against these bills. By looking at this particluar bill,* I would think if they were treating their 11+ breeding dogs humanely, they wouldn't be concerned about legislation such as this.* This particular bill in my opinion is VERY minimal regarding humane treatment of dogs.


I think it is a jump here to make the statement above in bold print. I believe most, if not all, hobby/show breeders would certainly treat their breeding dogs humanely and even nicer than "humanely." I know a few personally and their dogs are highly valued. Maybe that is not what you meant. I apologize if I misunderstood what you are trying to say.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

I just don't understand why ANY breeder would be complaining about a bill which supports/enforces minimal standards of care for dogs.


----------



## edelweiss (Apr 23, 2010)

vjw said:


> I just don't understand why ANY breeder would be complaining about a bill which supports/enforces minimal standards of care for dogs.


I can't speak for the breeders and they seem able to do that for themselves quite well. What I think is a jump is to infer because they disagree w/you that they do not care for their own animals. Again, IF I misunderstand your remarks please accept my apology.


----------



## puppy lover (Dec 25, 2007)

Rather than legitimate animal welfare and safety concerns, the AKC's focus is on unlikely scenarios and imprecise wording. (See Mary's first post.)
These are tactics used by the AKC (and their slick lobbying groups) for every piece of proposed humane legislation involving puppy mills and pet issues.
PA puppy mills - SourceWatch

The AKC scares breeders into believing these regulations will put them out of business and noone will be able to own their dream dog. It is no wonder the AKC tries to block humane legislation as most of their revenue is from puppy mills. When puppy mills are forced to close or comply to regulations, that lowers the AKC's bottom line.

Puppy mills are shutting down in those states that have passed stricter laws.
Over 100 mills closed in Pennsylvania. It's clear legislation is working as many mills choose to close rather than comply with new regulations. (See Joy's link in post #32.)

Edelweiss, it's true that the USDA is disgustingly lax at enforcement. This proposed legislation would add a new layer of protection for puppy mill animals at the state level. It gives the state permission for animal welfare workers to investigate cruelty and keep a check on puppy mills through surprise inspections.

The Animal Welfare Act (federal) does not protect half of puppy mill animals (those sold directly to the consumer over the internet). This legislation closes that loophole and gives these animals basic humane protection under the law.

Dogs from hobby breeders are also not protected under federal law. Not all hobby breeders are responsible. This legislation gives these dogs some basic measure of protection as well. It also encourages breeders to stay on the small side thereby discouraging the stacking of cages that is not uncommon with larger breeders.

If a breeder can't afford a license and drainage then she/he should not have 11 breeding bitches (or more) in the first place. If some larger breeders decide not to continue breeding due to stricter laws, so be it - as Joy stated. There will always be new ones who will come into the fold and fill the demand.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

Wow! Very well articulated Puppy Lover.


And speaking of dream dogs. . . there are some AWESOME dogs at rescue groups, the adoption areas in stores like PetSmart, and shelters. 

Every time I go in PetSmart, I wheel my cart by the adoption area and there are always beautiful dogs of all sizes. Some have really sweet temperaments too.

It doesn't make sense to me for any breeder to mass produce puppies when we are euthanizing millions of dogs every year because there aren't enough homes for them.


----------

