A Law Against Puppy Mills and Backyard Breeders

Doberluv

Active Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
22,038
Likes
2
Points
38
Location
western Wa
#21
Animal cruelty laws are already in place. People who mistreat animals need to be reported and punished. That's all that needs to be done. Other than that, the government needs to stay out of peoples' business and out of their homes. There are far too many laws, regulations, bans as it is. I don't agree with a law that one has to microchip his dog. I'm sick of groups of people telling other people what they have to do at every turn. Where do people get off thinking this is okay?! RTH's post says it all.
 

AllieMackie

Wookie Collie
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
6,598
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Ottawa, ON
#22
Let's say you're a lawmaker for a state and you want to create a law that will decrease or make it harder for puppy mills and backyard breeders in your state. What would be in your law? Here is mine:

-All Breeders must register:
All dog breeders would have to be registered, whether with AKC, SV, CKC, FCI, etc.
-All breeders must have kennel inspections:
Kennel inspections can be done by AKC and other registries or by people or an organization that is qualified.
-All breeding dogs and stock must be inspected:
Random inspections of breeding dogs and stock to see if they are healthy and fit.
-To be a licensed breeder, a breeder must have either graduated from breeding classes or been mentored by a breeder
This is to make sure breeders actually know what they are doing and what they are producing and etc.

What cha think?
Nope.

Ranch and farm dogs are often bred, and their pups handed out to other farms in the area as working dogs, and often one is kept to keep dogs of different age groups on the farm. They usually breed their dogs simply because their dogs are fantastic livestock movers/guardians, and they want to pass those traits on. These dogs are never genetically tested, and heck, some of them aren't even purebred. Dogs that do great around the farm, move livestock, and are otherwise a great help to their farmer. The pups tend to grow to become more of the same, and you don't really know this breeding is going on because these good working dogs don't often wind up in rescues, they just grow old on the farm.

But they're theoretically backyard breeders, and under your laws they would be outlawed. Many working/herding breeds and their fanciers avoid AKC/CKC, Finn's breeder included, and instead have their own governing organizations to protect the working characteristics of the breed. Same with sport dogs, a lot of them are not registered with the large showy organizations.

It bothers me that every time someone decides to make up these "dog breeding laws" they only think of the show breeds and the massive dog registration authorities. It just can't work that way.

Dekka's thing could work, and is much more reasonable, I'm all for something that simply keeps dimwits from breeding dogs for cuteness/profit. I also agree with RTH on enforcing laws already in place to control these things.
 

AllieMackie

Wookie Collie
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
6,598
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Ottawa, ON
#23
How does that treat a responsible breeder as a criminal?. If you re-read my post I said anyone who wanted to breed their dog would have to have them genetically tested. If the results came back negative then they would be required to spay and neuter them. It seems to me that it would cut down on bad breeding. A responsible breeder however is one that already have the breeding pair genetically tested. A responsible breeder already is not breeding every heat cycle. If a person cannot be a responsible breeder and they feel the need to breed then perhaps they should be moving the next day.

The only reason why we have bad breeders and puppy mills to begin with is because of greed. It surely is not anything to do with a lacking supply.
Genetically tested how? What breeds get what testing done? Hips? Eyes? Heart? Lungs? Knees? Even amongst the most reputable of breeders, a lot of breeds have disagreements on what is required for genetic testing in a breed.

Who defines what genetic tests need to be done, and on which breed? What is considered a pass, what is considered a fail? Who is paying people to work these things out?

Suddenly everything gets more complicated, and breeders have genetic tests pushed on them that are oft-times useless.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
4,381
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Midwest
#24
I honestly don't know. I don't think their should be any kind of spaying/neutering laws. It doesn't do anything, for one thing, and there are plenty of reasons to keep a dog intact other than breeding or showing.

But I do think *something* should be done. Maybe you can "mind your own business," but dogs are my passion, and I care about ALL dogs, not just my own.
and now you assume i don't care about all dogs. I find it highly unlikely that anyone on here is more passionate about dogs than I am. I can control what I do with my own, and I focus on that. My dealings with my dogs. I try to help those that want it. I try to lead by example.

I do feel badly for dogs that aren't trained the way I think they should be, I feel badly when I see obese or skinny dogs. I see the way some dogs are kept and want to take them home with me. But I can't. I see dogs that shouldn't be sporting a set of testicles, but are and dogs having puppies that shouldn't be. I see tons of owners that aren't even in the same book as me where dog ownership and responsibilities are concerned

But if you're not on the level of beating your dogs till bloody, starving, or killing animals, I don't really feel it is my place to try and legislate your life.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
4,381
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Midwest
#25
yeah, i'm not really sold on genetic testing. There is so much we dont' understand, especially long term concerning genetics and how selecting against certain undersireable traits short term can have devestating long term impacts.

We know lots of cool stuff concerning genetics, but I don't think we know enough to start selecting on such a micro managed scale. I think we are better off breeding for big picture beeding now, health, tempemerment and drive.
 

Dekka

Just try me..
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19,779
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
43
Location
Ontario
#26
Animal cruelty laws are already in place. People who mistreat animals need to be reported and punished. That's all that needs to be done. Other than that, the government needs to stay out of peoples' business and out of their homes. There are far too many laws, regulations, bans as it is. I don't agree with a law that one has to microchip his dog. I'm sick of groups of people telling other people what they have to do at every turn. Where do people get off thinking this is okay?! RTH's post says it all.
Ok.. fair enough (though the topic was what law would you make)

But how do you suggest we stop the over pop of unwanted pets in the US? I get not wanting more laws. But IMO this is a good example of when the gov could do good. Microchipping is cheap, easy and makes asshats responsible for their product/business. There are already laws in place that deal with that sort of thing, and they protect you every day.

Another comment about genetic testing. If every breeder had to do every test possible puppies would need to be 5k to 10k a piece. Who could afford pups then?

If you want a solution it has to be cheap, universal, not raise the cost of puppies and not penalize those who are doing it right in any aspect of the dog world.
 

Dekka

Just try me..
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19,779
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
43
Location
Ontario
#27
But if you're not on the level of beating your dogs till bloody, starving, or killing animals, I don't really feel it is my place to try and legislate your life.
But we are talking about animals being killed. Seems the estimate is that shelters put down between 8-10 million dogs a year in the US. Now I am sure a few aren't due to no homes, but the vast majority of these are dogs who are DYING, being KILLED because the person who bred them either didn't want them back, or had no way of knowing they were in a shelter.


And we are talking about your tax dollars looking after these dogs in public shelters.

(not aimed at you, but I always find it funny those who often claim they don't want their taxes going to help people, but they are ok with their taxes warehousing pets that were irresponsibly bred)
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Oklahoma
#28
There's so many things wrong with these ideas imo...

Just a few:

Who exactly is a BYB? You could not get all of us to decide on Chaz and agree with each other (I personally think the term is 100% useless). Why is a dog from a 'BYB' more or less breed worthy than one from a show breeder? Was my sheltie from a farm less of a good sheltie than my show/sport bred dog? What if I told you that her temperament was a lot better than his was? Show breeders aren't infallible and there are plenty of other reasons to breed dogs.

What is a negative result on a test? What if hips come back fair, not good or excellent? If someone breeds a dog that rated fair are they a 'byb'? What if a dog is only DJD1 in one elbow but healthy otherwise and is never affected by it their whole life? What if the dog is tested by two organizations and the results came back differently depending on the organization? Health tests are great but not infallible either. And in many breeds the worst health problems (like epi in paps) are not things you can screen for.

In some breeds if you spayed and neutered all the dogs that didn't score 'excellent' on their OFAs and then you also neutered the 'byb' dogs then you'd be taking a HUGE hit to the genepool. Breeds also need genetic diversity. You can't just go out and spay and neuter them all. That so called 'byb' line could be very invaluable to a breed. Many show lines are already closely related especially in some breeds. I think we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot getting rid of that potential there.

Also, as pointed out not all decent breeders register their dogs for various reasons. There is not just one way to do this dog breeding thing.

And someone losing their house for being a 'byb'? That's horrifying!
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
4,381
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Midwest
#29
But we are talking about animals being killed. Seems the estimate is that shelters put down between 8-10 million dogs a year in the US. Now I am sure a few aren't due to no homes, but the vast majority of these are dogs who are DYING, being KILLED because the person who bred them either didn't want them back, or had no way of knowing they were in a shelter.


And we are talking about your tax dollars looking after these dogs in public shelters.

(not aimed at you, but I always find it funny those who often claim they don't want their taxes going to help people, but they are ok with their taxes warehousing pets that were irresponsibly bred)
yeah and I'd like to see the numbers of pets sold every year. I bet it's a lot more than what are killed. and is it a "breeder" problem? what about the owners? they're the ones that are giving them up a nd putting them down.

Most shelters aren't here dont' get much in the way of tax revenue. a bit for each stray brought in by the city and they get breaks on the buildings they use and such, but I don't mind that. Most of their money comes from fund raisers, donations and city licensing, which is just a tax when you get down to it, but I don't play that game. I donate my money to who I want.
 

Xandra

Active Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
3,806
Likes
0
Points
36
#30
Totally agree with RTH. If someone wants to breed and/or sell their dog, cat, horse, rat, cow, pig, alpaca, donkey, chicken, house gecko or cichlid, I think they should be able to without any interference.

Dekka's solution is better but how would you enforce it unless you controlled who bred in the first place? And what about cats? More cats are killed due to a larger population problem than are dogs, but is everyone who gives away a barn kitten going to have to chip it first?

Frankly, just my personal opinion of course, but judging from the state of so many AKC breeds, the AKC is one of the LAST groups I'd want to see in charge of overseeing breeding. Some of the other registries are approaching that level as well. Registries are rife with politics, favoritism and nepotism. In many cases, I'd far rather have a dog from someone who keeps their own lines and stays true to their breed than someone with a wall full of titles.
Also with this, especially the bold.
 

Doberluv

Active Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
22,038
Likes
2
Points
38
Location
western Wa
#31
I think for the main stream public, they're aware of the over population problem, but on a more surface level. I think there could be a whole lot more education promoted than there currently is...education about the stuff we talk about, like how important it is to breed responsibly, to really get it out there more. It may help a little. The over population problem is not likely ever going to go away completely. But so it is with all problems. The answer isn't some authority group, be it the AKC or the government. What do they manage with any real effectiveness? And no matter what the cost, I adamantly don't believe in selling out our right to live without having the police bust down my doors (both literally and figuritively) and intrude in my life. These proposed, theoretical laws would just breed more of that.
 

Dekka

Just try me..
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19,779
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
43
Location
Ontario
#32
Well a simple to do hands off approach. Ie the shelter (not some nameless gov person) scans a dog that comes in. The information is used to contact the breeder, they have a choice to get the dog or be billed.

Very simple, not to hard to mess up. No new gov body needs to be made.

And I don't think education is enough. Talk to people in rescues, they often think there can be NO ethical breeding. I can't tell you of how many educated people think a breeder bred dog is bad, shelter dog is good.

Or take the sample of someone I know. She KNOWS she shouldn't buy from a byb. She works at the university here, wants to get into dog training... she did buy a dog from a byb cause they convinced her they weren't a byb. Education isn't going to cut it, might make a small dent, but thats it. Look how many people smoke even though they know it does nothing 'good' for them and is a serious carcinogen... loads of smart people who know the dangers still start to smoke. I don't think one should outlaw smoking! But I am glad there are regulations about people smoking where it can hurt non smokers.

Dogs are dying in the millions. We can hope that by telling people its wrong, they will stop. But really when has that EVER worked on ANYTHING?
 

Dekka

Just try me..
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19,779
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
43
Location
Ontario
#33
yeah and I'd like to see the numbers of pets sold every year. I bet it's a lot more than what are killed. and is it a "breeder" problem? what about the owners? they're the ones that are giving them up a nd putting them down.

Most shelters aren't here dont' get much in the way of tax revenue. a bit for each stray brought in by the city and they get breaks on the buildings they use and such, but I don't mind that. Most of their money comes from fund raisers, donations and city licensing, which is just a tax when you get down to it, but I don't play that game. I donate my money to who I want.
I don't see how the number sold makes a difference? Don't breeder sell dogs?

Consumers aren't going to stop buying 'byb' dogs if the sellers can say anything they want, produce what ever crap they want with no consequence. See my previous post. I know smart educated people who buy from people (byb and not) who pump out the dogs and never want to hear from you, esp if you have a problem.
 

Xandra

Active Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
3,806
Likes
0
Points
36
#34
Well a simple to do hands off approach. Ie the shelter (not some nameless gov person) scans a dog that comes in. The information is used to contact the breeder, they have a choice to get the dog or be billed.

Very simple, not to hard to mess up. No new gov body needs to be made.

And I don't think education is enough. Talk to people in rescues, they often think there can be NO ethical breeding. I can't tell you of how many educated people think a breeder bred dog is bad, shelter dog is good.

Or take the sample of someone I know. She KNOWS she shouldn't buy from a byb. She works at the university here, wants to get into dog training... she did buy a dog from a byb cause they convinced her they weren't a byb. Education isn't going to cut it, might make a small dent, but thats it. Look how many people smoke even though they know it does nothing 'good' for them and is a serious carcinogen... loads of smart people who know the dangers still start to smoke. I don't think one should outlaw smoking! But I am glad there are regulations about people smoking where it can hurt non smokers.

Dogs are dying in the millions. We can hope that by telling people its wrong, they will stop. But really when has that EVER worked on ANYTHING?
Well rates of smoking have steadily decreased:

Smoking and Tobacco Use :: Data and Statistics :: Tables, Charts, and Graphs: Trends in Current Cigarette Smoking Among High School Students and Adults, United States, 1965–2007 :: Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) :: CDC

This is due to education.

The majority of animals here are s/n, lots of people are opposed to intact dogs... this is a change in attitude via education.

You look at euthanasia rates in my area (Vancouver) vs some comparable cities in some of the Southern US states and there is a big difference... why? probably because here s/n is common place, and we don't have s/n laws but through education and affordable s/n clinics there's a big difference.

I understand how your idea would work when the dog was successfully identified but you make a law that says "all dogs sold must be microchipped" and then what? What's to stop me from breeding my dog and selling the pups without microchipping? How would anyone even know when I was breeding? Is the SPCA going to hunt through classified ads, going to people's homes and scanning the pups?

Perhaps it could work in big licensed kennels (i.e. puppy mills) but how it would work with your average Joe I don't get.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
4,381
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Midwest
#35
I don't see how the number sold makes a difference? Don't breeder sell dogs?

Consumers aren't going to stop buying 'byb' dogs if the sellers can say anything they want, produce what ever crap they want with no consequence. See my previous post. I know smart educated people who buy from people (byb and not) who pump out the dogs and never want to hear from you, esp if you have a problem.
well numbers sold tells you just how many people want and buy dogs from all over. i'm sure it far outweighs the amount killed. So of course breeders keep breeding puppies, they have consumers. So do we have an overbreeding problem or an owner problem?

I have no idea how one can say you can sell a puppy, but then are legally responsible for it after ownership is transferred. I"m sorry, you buy a puppy or dog, YOU are responsible after that.

If I was selling one to someone, i'd have to feel pretty confident that in the event something happened, they'd return the dog to me, but if they didn't, i sure as heck don't want someone telling me I'm responsible after that. Just like if I buy a dog, it's mine, nobody else is responsible after that point. They don't get a say in how I feed, vaccinate, train, travel, house, water, vet or anything, especially not what I want to do with it after. If I want to breed, it, train it, sell it to someone else or give it away.

If they don't like me enough to sell me a dog, then they don't have to. I'm certainly not giving that power to a bunch of legislators to tell me what I have to do. Not willingly.
 

Dekka

Just try me..
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19,779
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
43
Location
Ontario
#36
Well if they didn't wouldn't you want the option to know its in a shelter so you could come get it?
 

Dekka

Just try me..
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19,779
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
43
Location
Ontario
#37
Xandra, as I said it will make a dent, but not fix the problem. That just illustrates it nicely.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
4,381
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Midwest
#38
Well if they didn't wouldn't you want the option to know its in a shelter so you could come get it?
of course I would and that is MY choice I make. Not one somebody else gets to make for me.

I am totally against any laws that allow for the sale of something, but after that sale, responsibility is put back on the seller should the buyer fail to live up to their responsibilities.
 

Dekka

Just try me..
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19,779
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
43
Location
Ontario
#39
really, what a strange concept IMO. Esp in light of how much regulation there is of manufactured goods.
 

Xandra

Active Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
3,806
Likes
0
Points
36
#40
Xandra, as I said it will make a dent, but not fix the problem. That just illustrates it nicely.
I wouldn't call that a dent, and the rates seem to still be decreasing...

We aren't killing puppies by the binful where I live, yet they are in some places in the states. Actually, I don't think we kill ANY puppies here for lack of space (they move QUICKLY)... I don't think that is a minor difference.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top