New Puppy Mill Regulations Being Considered

Legislation intended to improve conditions at commercial dog breeding facilities or 'puppy mills' is currently being considered in the United States Senate.
http://www.anc.org/pets/pets_article.cfm? identifier=121401_regulations

- Animal News Center Webmaster

If this is your version of news, it is rather scary. This is strictly a PR article for the The 'Puppy Protection Act' (so named because no one would look good if they actually vote against something to 'protect puppies' is not aimed at puppy mills. It is aimed at anyone who produces even one litter, ever.

There is no money to back up the enforcement, because if there were, the puppy mill dogs would ALREADY be cared for better than they are, but there is no one to enforce the rules already in place.

In addition, it is all about paperwork, which puppymills are adept at manipulating. So you have to socialize puppies so many times a day/week? Who cares. Just write down that you did it.

In case you think this only affects purebred dogs and breeders, just hang around for the results. This bill is being pushed along by the same people who would like to count the dogs in your home (spayed/neutered or not) and decide how many *you* can comfortably care for. Do you work outside the home? You are an unfit dog owner. Is three dogs too many for you? They will decide. Is sheepherding your hobby? Not if the AR people have their way, because sheepherding is stressful to sheep.

I am not against legislation for better care of any dog, but I am against legislation being written by those whose goal is to end pet ownership of any kind.

Be careful what you (or your representatives) vote for...You may get it. There are several communities nationwide who are being told they cannot breed their dogs unless they pay $300-$1000 or more per breeding animal to even have it in their home. I am not a breeder, but I do have an intact male in my home, that I enjoying showing in the breed ring.

He is 6 years old, and I have never had any inclination to use him. If I were living in one of the AR cities, I would have had to pay $1,800-$6,000 (or much more, depending on the city) just for the right of having my pet in my home.

Again, even if this WERE just aimed at puppy mills, it would be useless. The fact that they choose to not reveal it is not just for Puppy Mills should give you a clue that this bill is to be avoided.

And for those of you with websites bragging about your dogs, do be aware that they are being used by Humane Societies, AR people and other head counters. Don't be surprised at a knock on the door. Breeding dogs or not, they like to count heads.

Again, it would be nice if this were a NEWS article (as noted in your domain name - Animal NEWS center), and not a PR article with lots of missing

Wow! Did we read the same article? The one I read had quite a lot of good information, specifics on the changes being made to the Animal Welfare Act, links to the AWA. . . seemed like news to me.

Your response, however, came off as pure emotional reaction. Your emotionalism lead me to conclude that you have a problem with one of the specific changes being made to the AWA. . . perhaps one of these will directly affect you? I have quoted the changes below to refresh your memory.

* require that female dogs be at least one year old before being bred * allow the breeding of female dogs no more than three times during any two-year period * require dogs to be socialized with people and other dogs * make mandatory the revocation of a breeder’s license if he or she is cited for three or more violations of the Animal Welfare Act

What about any of these could you possibly see as a problem?! The day this passes, I will be dancing in the streets.

Shelties Own Our Home wrote:

The problem many perceive is not with the actual provisions, but with the administration authority. Part of this is simply poor timing, in conjunction with the DDAL v. USDA decision, bringing dog breeders under the USDA umbrella. See the legislation watch page at akc.org for their position.

Lynn K.

I always assume that AKC will oppose anything that limits breeding (c; Always has and probably always will because they are an organization that lives in the stone age.

That assumption might get in the way of you objectively evaluating the arguments they posit.

Lynn K.