Upcoming puppymill legislation - Please help!

Yeah, I'm pretty sure when they say sell, they mean sell. Though that might include "adopt." I'm also still trying to figure out if your average breeder would magically become a retail pet store. It needs some work.

Corgipower, that is incorrect. You need to read the animal welfare act, and then read the proposed bill to understand the changes that would be made.

The words "breed or raise" are an obvious and deliberate attempt to
snare many kennel and dog owners in federal regulations, including
many kennels that do not breed at all. The language is very
ambiguous and could be interpreted to include virtually anyone who
has a lot of dogs.

The term "raise" is not defined in the legislation, but is generally
interpreted to mean a person who keeps, cares for, houses or owns a
dog or dogs.

Most professional trainers and handlers of field trial, show,
obedience or performance dogs would have more than 50 dogs in their
kennels over the course of a year. In fact, many trainers and
handlers who employ helpers would have more than 50 dogs at any
given time, and most do not breed at all.

A boarding kennel, dog daycare service, hound hunt club, hunting
plantation or circus could be included under a definition that
they "raise" more than 50 dogs per year. Even many private field
trialers and show dog people would have more than 50 dogs a year in
their kennels, as they often keep most of the puppies they produce
to evaluate. For field trial dogs, for example, it often takes two
or three years of working with a young dog to determine if it is
worthy to use for competition or breeding.

A favorite tactic of HSUS is to deliberately use ambiguity in model
legislation in order to entrap as many kennels and dogs in the law
as possible, going far beyond the stated purpose. If HSUS and its
elected cronies had wanted to be honest, the legislation simply
would say that it excludes anyone who sells fewer than 50 puppies a
year.

I am unclear as to why ANYONE, regardless if they are a sporting dog enthusiast, a breeder, a doggy daycare, whatever, would be opposed to dogs being let out of cages for 60 minutes per day, or would be opposed to inspsection. If you are treating the dogs humanely, what exactly is the problem with an inspection?

I am not opposed to the core of the bill, which is targetting puppy mills. But maybe make them aware of the amibigious wording, and how it could be used to take the spirit of the bill out of context and how it would have a very negative effect on working dog kennels, like Sch kennels that train dogs for PP and law enforcement, etc.

Rescues and reputable breeders do not derive a substantial portion of their income from the adoption of animals.

Yea, if it's possible to define it that specifically. I don't know if a "puppy mill" can be defined in a way that won't snare someone else. Most "puppy mills" however are in violation of basic cruelty laws. I think it would be better to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

I was thinking the same thing. Large puppy mills are exempted from these laws though. It would be great to change the law so that animal cruelty laws apply to EVERYONE, regardless of definition.

Plus, the USDA has some corruption issues. They don't care about dogs. Inspectors let things slide all the time.

Well, and what about trainers of bird dogs or other dogs that are sold trained? I can certainly see a reputable kennel who does that type of thing makign MOST of their income from that. (Frankly, I think it'd be the only way to train more than a dog or two at a time, as you'd need to be doing dog stuff so much of the time that it had darn well better be a fulltime income, or you had better be independently wealthy.) It seems like a lot of the larger GSD kennels probably turnoer 50 dogs a year when you count puppies they sell + dogs in training.