AKC is helping to pass Puppy Mill Regulation Laws
KIMBERLY HEFLING Associated Press WASHINGTON - The leader of the nation's largest animal breeding registry joined animal welfare groups Tuesday in urging Congress to expand federal regulation of so-called "puppy mills." The American Kennel Club, which has opposed changes to the Animal Welfare Act in the past, decided "the time has come to bring under regulation high-volume breeders and brokers who sell at retail or who import puppies in volume for resale," said chairman Ronald Menaker, whose group registers nearly 1 million purebred dogs a year. Menaker testified at a Senate agriculture subcommittee hearing on a bill that would add oversight to these operations in an attempt to curtail cruel conditions for adult breeding dogs and their puppies, which are sometimes sold for thousands of dollars. Some small breeders and pet store operators oppose the regulation as unnecessary. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., a sponsor of the Senate bill along with Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., noted that groups that, in the past, have had a prickly relationship were working together on the bill. The bill would extend regulations to those who sell more than 25 dogs per year, and it exempts those who raise up to seven litters a year on their own premises. The Animal Welfare Act, which mandates a basic standard of care for animals, currently exempts retail pet stores from federal oversight. Large breeding operations are considered retailers by the Agriculture Department if they sell directly to consumers. In the 30 years since the act was passed, the Internet has opened up a new market to these retailers, helping them to sell puppies around the country. Michael Maddox, legislative director of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, a pet trade industry group, testified that pet stores were exempted because they are subject to broad public exposure and are frequently regulated locally. Maddox said that one provision in the bill mandating oversight of those who sell 25 animals a year imported from other countries - even at pet stores - goes beyond the intention of the original law. He said the bill would overburden inspectors and wasn't necessary. Menaker praised a provision in the bill that exempts the operations that pass inspection standards set by not-for-profit organizations certified by the Agriculture Department. Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society, testified that just last week 151 dogs were found in the home of a retail dealer in Vero Beach, Fla., in a condition he described as "skin and bones." Leaders from the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Doris Day Animal League also testified on the bill's behalf. "This is a problem here and now," Pacelle said. ON THE NET American Kennel Club: http://www.akc.org/ The Humane Society of the United States: http://www.hsus.org/ Agriculture Department: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome Animal Welfare Act: http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentuck...cs/13114961.htm |
|
|
| That is awesome news. The stricter the laws the better, and they need to ENFORCE the laws they pass. |
| Are we talking about the PAWS bill? Or another bill? Kaye |
| It does sound like the PAWS bill... but it doesn't state that that's what it is. |
| With Senator Santorum's name on the article, I can almost bet this is the PAWS bill. I know some of you will be for the PAWS bill, but I for one am totally against it. For those of you, who may not be as informed in this bill, please do research on this proposed bill and try and see the negative effects as well as the positive ones.
This bill the way I have read it will effect the smaller home based breeders more than it will the puppy mills. I should also say, that JUST IN MY OPINION, there isn't much difference in commercial breeders and puppy mills. The bill is still allowing large numbers of dogs and cats to be bred, but just under USDA licensing, and to have a building separate that you raise your animals in, among many, many other regulations that have to be met. Most of the regulations that they are asking for, cannot be made in most residential area's, so most of your responsible hobby breeders will not be able to breed anymore. I do believe stricter laws should be put in place of large volume breeders. I also believe that the AKC should be the one trying to change their own rules and regulations on raising dogs, as should the cat fanciers clubs. I agree that something should be done to protect animals, but IMO, this PAWS bill is not the way to go. You may be asking why this is so important to me? I am a breeder myself, not of dogs though, this bill, if passed, will affect me and many responsible home breeders. I am not sure my neighborhood would allow a separate building to raise animals, but even if it would, I would stop breeding rather than put my pets in some "state of the art" building away from my family and the comfort of being a pet. This bill will also affect large based home rescues just the same. There are many, many websites out right now that are both for and against the PAWS bill, stating facts and opinions. Please take the time and read all the facts before supporting this bill. If you would like help finding the sites or would like to find a way to make your voice heard and oppose this bill, please feel free to email me. My intention is not to offend anyone with my opinion, nor is it my intention to protect the large volume breeders. Thank you for listening, Stormi Nell |
| "exempts those who raise up to seven litters a year on their premises"
Who would need to raise more than that unless they are (IMO) then a commercial breeder, or close to it. I also agree with anyone who sells more than 25 a year. The more animals the more risk of disease, no matter how good intentioned the breeder is. I do NOT however like the requirement of a seperate building either.... I would not bother breeding at all if they couldn't be raised in our home as part of the family. Maybe instead of opposing they could just amend it somewhat? Like saying if you have over a certain number of animals for breeding then you must have a facility in addition to your home, or a home of a certain number of square feet. Or, IMO, the best thing they could do is put a limit on how many dogs or cats a breeder can have. |
| Hi Stacey,
It is nice to hear your input, as I always respect your opinion. However, on this topic, I am going to have to respectfully disagree. From the way I have read the bill, (and I may be wrong), but it is 6 litters OR up to 25 animals. If I am correct, then in a sheepdog, 3 litters could easily put that total over. Would you hope to keep a daughter of Sky or Dancer, I would think that depending on individual litter size that this could affect you....LOL, if you were in the US. I also believe the cost of stud fee also counts as a sale towards the 25 animals. Then we think about cats, some cats heat cycles require them to be bred 2 times a year to 3 times in 2 years. Again, depending on litter sizes, a breeder could go over 25 kittens in a very short amount of time with very few queens. If a breeder helps out with a rescue organization, that also will affect the number. In theory, say I have 2 queens that have large litters, 7 or 8 in each delivery. Lets also say that per my vets opinion, has decided that because of the frequency of heat cycles and the cats ability to bounce back after her cycles, that it is his opinion these cats should be bred every 5-6 heat cycles or every 6-8 months. These 2 queens could have put me over the 25 kitten rule just in those 2 cats. A hobby breeder may still want to work other lines in or out, and would have more than 2 queens. It will be a cat breeder being required to make changes, either not to have the ability to work with very many lines and keep 2 to 3 breeding females, or choosing to continue trying to improve your lines and forcing to become a "facility breeder". I agree that there are a few good rules within the bill, such as making pet shops keep records of where the dogs came from, but as a whole this bill needs a lot of revision. My assumption on rescues, depending on the popularity of the breed could be worse off than breeders. I would assume 25 rescues of the Labrador breed would go by quickly. I think the bill has good intentions, but IMO will clearly affect the smaller hobby dog breeders, and because of the different reproductive needs of dogs and cats, it will affect cat breeders even more so. Again, I mean this respectfully, and look forward to hearing more of your opinions on the subject. Hugs, Stormi |
| I see many of your points, and I do realize that with cats it is going to work out very differently, since some cats cycle every few weeks, and most dogs only cycle once or twice a year. Dancer has a cycle every eight months, some once a year, some not even that often.
Still, I do think it is a good idea to have stiffer laws and more of them, and enforcement of those laws. If not this bill, at least the thought is beginning to go in the right direction, and with revision, it may be the best thing the US has done for animals in a long time. I would not accept being forced to have my pets in another building, however I would have no objection to inspections for smaller scale breeders, and especially large scale breeders aka mills. I still don't think it's healthy for the animals to be too numerous, no matter what the reason is. Rescue, breeders good or bad or in between.... I would LOVE to have a houseful of pets, one or two of everything...lol.... but my resources for their care would be stretched too thin, including time, money and attention. I would rather the ones I have are healthy, happy and well cared for. |
| I think the big issue with PAWS, from what I gather on dog lists that I am on, is that the commercial breeders are exempt, so the new law would not affect them... It does not touch the mills, or the large-volume breeders, but just the small ones that are trying to do it right. And yes, the smaller breeders would be impacted negatively. Not only do the whelping bitches and pups need to be kept in a separate building or whatever, but even if they co-own dogs, which happens a lot when placing show pups etc, they all count towards the number of dogs they "own", even if not on their premises. I see that if this passes the small, home-based breeders will be fazed out and the large commercial breeders will have a hey-day, as they will be untouched. I know many good breeders, and a small breeder, in my opinion, is one with under 20 dogs. Many keep them in kennels, except for the whelping bitches that come in the house with the pups. Some other ones rotate them weekly, so they all take turns inside, so they keep thier house manners. And if the breeder retires and keeps the seniors, well, all the more dogs........If this law passes as is, it will be a long time before any other ones pass, as this one has been on the horizon for such a long time. Longer for the commercial breeders to flourish. Folks may be better off getting a well-socialized, house-raised pup from "up north, eh".
Also, the placement of rescue dogs, if there is money that changes hands, is also considered "a sale" and my small rescue group, go through 25-35 dogs a year..easy. This is what I understand, but I could be a bit off in areas. But in the first post I thought it showed someone who was standing up against the bill, the way is is right now, so that is good news for folks who do not support it, right? |
They way you've put it makes it much easier to understand.... I think I am misunderstanding the first post to mean they ARE going after large volume breeders, and then when PAWS was mentioned I thought revision had been made to include large scale?? Maybe I'm just reading everything wrong, I'm confused.  |
| I have read this document if we are talking about the PAWS bill.It is a legal document and very hard to understand. There are loop holes and contradictions in it...My opinion for what it is worth is that it isn't going to do anything to the commercial breeders............Commercial breeders are under USDA...So they will use that as their loop hole.......It will affect the backyard breeders.. I don't understand their reasoning about a seperate building....How is that going to help solve the problem of pumping out puppies? It could affect rescues.Because we charge a adoption fee.So money exchanges hands..... So they could classify that as a SELL......Only part of the puppies coming out of puppymills are AKC.....Some are under other registries........Something has to be done...The Flood Gates are open......AKC makes more money off the commercial breeders then they do all the others combined......I find it very hard to believe they are going to SHOOT THEIRSELF IN THE FOOT!!!! It is all about Money......Kaye |
| stormi:
if you're out there, contact me. I need websites that are for puppy mills and businesses that get their pups from puppy mills. i'm doing a research paper and need to get the opposing view of shutting down pupppy mills. you can get me on k9mom7@hotmail.com thanks. |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|