Printable View
This is an interesting report on ABC News today;
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...ies020411.html
It seems to be a case of the Humane Society of the United States vs the American Kennel Club. It's a shame they can't
work together to solve the overpopulation problem.
What do you think ?
I, for one, hope it passes unanimously. I have no use for the AKC anyway, and to be perfectly honest, I'm not surprised the support the bill. I think it would be wonderful to see these puppy mills and backyard breeders put out of business. I would be happy to have them come and inspect my home and my dogs, because I have nothing to hide.
Before making an opinion on this subject, please know the facts. First let me start by saying I think everyone who knows me from my past posts, understands that I am all for proper breeding! And SOCIALIZATION is a key factor in the life of a puppy who will become a welcome adult canine into our society.
However, in my opinion, another law which can not be enforced is not the answer to dog overpopulation and unethical breeding. It is more educated consumers and people willing to enforce the laws we already have in effect!
We currently have The Animal Welfare Act already passed into law. Since 1966 this law has required licensing and inspecting of dog dealers. Requirements include adequate housing, ample food and water, reasonable handling, basic disease prevention, decent sanitation and sufficient ventilation.
If this law can not be enforced why does anyone believe this new bill has a chance of succeeding.
The AKC is NOT opposed to the protection of innocent puppies. It is opposed to the possible harm this new bill will will have on the hobby and show breeders. Of which I am one!
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), (remember I am from PA) the lead sponsor of the PPA (Puppy Protection Act), continues to tell fanciers and his colleagues that the PPA targets only "puppy mills" and will not affect hobby and show breeders. However, Senator Santorum rejected AKC's efforts to include language in the PPA, and even in Senate floor discussions, that would limit the PPA only to the commercial breeders currently regulated under the Animal Welfare Act.
We do not need the federal government creating more laws. We need them to help the agency in place now to enforce the current law. The USDA agency is bogged down with so much red tape and lack of man power now, that creating stricter regulations will have a very adverse reaction from what is desired by those fighting for the bill.
Think about it. The PPA provision does not give the USDA any more authority than it already has. It will create an incentive for dealers to challenge every violation rather than providing an incentive to come into compliance. It does not address the real enforcement problem, which is persons operating without a license or with a suspended or revoked license.
The answer to dog overpopulation and unethical breeding is not more laws. It is more educated consumers and people willing to enforce laws we already have in effect.
We do not need the federal government involved to create more red tape to muddle through. If you really care about this issue then do more to educate the consumer so they won't purchase puppy mill dogs! Do more to find out about puppy mills in your area and report them so the USDA can enforce current laws. Do more to teach regular pet owners about spaying and neutering their dogs.
Do you really think the federal government, once this new bill is passed into law, will do any better than it does now with existing laws?
One final thought! The AKC is not the enemy. It is the unethical people who breed and the uneducated consumer who buys. The AKC has done numerous things to make it possible for breeders to limit their puppies from being used for breeding stock. None of the puppies that Dixie had can be bred and have their puppies AKC registered. They were all sold on AKC limited registrations. I will only lift the registration from limited to full (which gives their puppies the ability to be AKC registered) if they pass all health clearances for the Golden breed, are titled in a performance venue such as obedience, agility, tracking, etc..., and will sell the puppies on the same general arrangement that I did. They must also be willing to take a puppy back if it is ever found to be homeless or in a abusive situation.
All breeders of AKC registered dogs have this option. But unethical breeders or backyard breeders choose to ignore this option which further complicates the issue. And the AKC has it's own team that goes out and investigates kennels that submit numerous and repeated registrations.
Let's put the blame where it should lay, on the public. We do not need more legislation. We need current legislation enforced!
I plan on writing to Senator Santorum (who I voted for) and telling him I usually agree with him but in this matter, I don't. I believe the PPA should be taken out of the farm bill!
There are no current laws which prohibit breeding
female dogs before 1 year of age, or more than
three times in any 2 year period. The Animal
Welfare Act does not address breeding regulations
at all. While I have nothing but the greatest
respect for Candy (Dixie),as a reputable and
responsible breeder, I cannot share the same
opinion on the Puppy Protection Act.There are
several key provisions in this law that are not
addressed anywhere else in law.There is also a
three strikes provision where repeat violaters
can have licenses revoked.
Just hope everyone will take 2 minutes to read
the article and form their own opinion.
Thanks, Liz & Buddy
Under current legislation they don't have to wait for three strikes! They can revoke someone's license with no strikes if they see fit. That is what I mean when I say: The PPA provision does not give the USDA any more authority than it already has. It will create an incentive for dealers to challenge every violation rather than providing an incentive to come into compliance.
I think we are all able to understand that anyone who is unethical does not care that the law states the pup should be one year old and can not be bred more than three times in any 2 year period. Your professional and hobby breeders do not recommend breeding until after the dog is two years old.
I guess the bottom line is, Will this provision to the farm bill make a difference? I believe the answer is no. It will just make it more difficult to enforce the laws we now have since the agencies that enforce abuse will be required to be spread even thinner than they are.
The Puppy Protection Act does not address the real enforcement problem, which is persons operating without a license or with a suspended or revoked license or who could care less how many times their dog was bred in the past two years. I also think that unethical people will always exist in this world and that the more people are educated to become aware of the problem, the less likely their will be a market for dogs bred by unethical breeders. As long as there is a market, there will be unethical breeders! And that is the sad truth about the whole subject! No matter how many laws we put into place. :( :( :(
I agree that there will always be unethical people who attempt to get around every new law and thus manage to spread enforcement resources thin and frustrate the good intentions of authorities. But I don't think this necessarily means that new legislation--even legislation that appears to almost duplicate existing laws--is just a pointless exercise in futility. I believe that the more legislation that gets passed, at both the federal and state levels, serves a useful purpose: it puts issues that would otherwise be ignored onto the public's "radar screen" and serves to raise consciousness in very concrete ways.
As an example, consider the issue of domestic violence. For decades (centuries, even?) this country's legislators claimed that spousal abuse was covered under various general criminal codes that prohibited assault, yet the police called to a domestic incident did nothing but calm the abuser down and send him back into the home. But in the 1980s there was an increase in legislation passed at the state level that specified exactly what was illegal in the home, and what penalties could follow. Gradually, abuse victims learned (from women's shelters, the media, etc.) that laws were in place to protect them, even if the police refused to do anything. But when police refused to take action victims knew they could press charges and the courts would uphold their safety. Slowly, the police learned that they must enforce what had been made law, and there are more police officers to do it. Certainly there are abusers and stalkers who slip through the legal system and never get arrested or dealt with severely, but in general the evolution of these laws has had a real effect.
I hope the same thing will eventually happen with animal abuse issues. Already, the few animal rights laws we do have have served notice on those people who mistreat pets (watch an episode of "Animal Precinct" and see those people actually get cuffed and arrested--unheard of a few decades ago!). And those laws have educated the non-abusing public about what is not acceptable and whom to call to report abuses. I think breeding laws will, in time, do the same thing.
The ethical breeders like Candy and the show/performance hobbyists with many dogs should have nothing to fear; their animals' living conditions should never warrant prosecution. But we have to start somewhere in expressing our outrage at horrible things that occur in society. I think the benefits of enacting more legislation outweighs the risks. Saying there's not enough funding to enforce laws, inspect facilities, and follow-up on violations should simply spur people to be creative and find ways to make reality catch up with the government's attempts to solve problems.
I agree that education is the key (or I wouldn't be a teacher) to just about anything. I do, however, believe that legislation is also necessary. I don't believe that the AKC has any way to enforce the codes they put in place especially when people test the waters and send in information about their 2 legged kids and get them registered with the AKC. As you all know, rescue is my love, so I wish that all breeding would be halted for awhile and force people who want dogs to go to a shelter or rescue to get their animals and educate them that a pedigree means absolutely nothing. I guess I think there is no such thing as a perfect anything and that the AKC just furthers the world's views that perfect is the only thing to have whether it's a dog, cat, car, or even children and if they're not perfect then it's ok to throw them away. (I'm sorry this is so strong, but this law has hit a really raw nerve with me, even right down to kids....which I see everyday). Candy, I respect that you want to bring puppies into the world for deserving parents and I know that you are ethical in every sense of the word, or you wouldn't be a part of Pet Talk, but I have to disagree with your stand. It sounds like the government needs to reassign the duties of animal laws to another agency (perhaps they will realize that maybe an agency dedicated to solely animal rights wouldn't be such a bad thing) and look at the legislation currently in place and fix what is there already. Perhaps there is a compromise on this somewhere. Sorry to be so mouthy, but I just can't help myself.
And being able to disagree is what's so great about our country! We are FREE to have an opinion.
I also respect each of your opinions and the passion in which you want to see these horrible crimes against our furry friends ended. What ever the outcome of the legislation, I pray we can all be a part of helping out in some small way to make life better for all animals. Because when we all pull our energies together for these defenseless animals, we all win!
EXACTLY, Candy! Even when we're disagreeing, all of us Pet Talkers are ultimately on the same side--we just want the best for these animals.
(I'd have added that to my previous post, but it was already waaayyy loooonnnng and I was boring even myself... :) )
Never boring kobi!! Isn't our country great, that we can debate these subjects and not end up killing each other because we have different opinions!!?? Kobi, your point was well made...I never thought about that side of it, but you're right, the more the issue is put in front of the public's eye, the more outraged the public becomes, and the more pressure to solve the problem is put on the law enforcement to do their jobs and enforce the laws. Candy, I sure hope I didn't offend you with my post...that wasn't my intention at all, because we are ultimately on the same side...do what's best for the 4 legged ones who can't speak for and defend themselves.
Mugsy, no offense taken. I understand your passion and your view. It is unfortunate that people take advantage of things like registering their kids with the AKC. I have never heard of that but I'm sure it happens. I know a guy who claims his dogs (he even has social security numbers for them) on his federal income taxes. He justifies it that they ARE his kids. I think if the government ever finds out he is going to pay one hefty fine or go to jail. :(Quote:
Originally posted by mugsy
Candy, I sure hope I didn't offend you with my post...that wasn't my intention at all, because we are ultimately on the same side...do what's best for the 4 legged ones who can't speak for and defend themselves.
Candy,
I almost pm'd you last night to be sure you were not
offended by the posts or the topic. That would hurt my
heart if you were. If everyone who breeds dogs, on a small
scale or the large scale (puppy farms) , were as reputable
and ethical as you are, there would be no need for breeding
or socialization type laws. Making these provisions law would
help "put teeth" into the existing framework of regulations.
I really believe the day is coming, sooner than we might
think, when the vast "silent majority" of animal lovers in this
country say "Enough is Enough" to the Puppy farm operators
and the back yard breeders (for profit). There are not enough
homes for the dogs alive today. Liz & Buddy.
We are debating the same issues in Australia. And I agree that it's a sign of a democratic country that there are differing opinions being expressed. I also agree that, whatever the legislation, educating the public is important. But I also believe that legislation can be educative in itself....it can 'lead' public opinion, not just follow it.
One angle I'd like to see emphasized is that there should be REWARDS for the breeders who do the right thing...in terms of number of litters, health & welfare of their dogs, and careful screening & placement of their puppies.
I'd like to see a peak animal welfare body (like our RSPCA) be given inspection & monitoring rights which would permit them to rate breeders as RSPCA- approved, if they meet all standards. The public would be educated on the advantages of dealing directly with breeders who have been given that rating. Hopefully, the non-RSPCA- approved breeders & dealers would then find their customers drying up... One way to get rid of the unethical dog breeders & sellers is to direct their customers elsewhere!
Our new Companion Animal Laws here give the RSPCA powers to go into any location & check concerns about dog & puppy welfare. Well, if they can go in to punish those who trangress against animal welfare laws, they could also go in to monitor & reward with an approval- rating those breeders whose procedures are exemplary. And the public would have access to that information.
Marie
Wow Marie, way cool!! Just another example of how far ahead Aussies are!! That is a great idea. You know, we use positive reinforcement all the time at school and of course parents use it at home already...why not in the law too...perhaps people would stop trying to get attention any which way whether good or bad and they would concentrate on the good. I also like your point about the laws educating, that was excellent.
Mugsy, you got it! I'm a teacher, too.... I've worked more recently in teacher education. Yep, & we teachers use positive reinforcement all the time because it works!
Australia hasn't got a positive reinforcement system in breeding/selling dogs yet...but I wish they'd do it. It's the way to go...reward the good breeders, educate the public about who they are & why they're good, & leave the baddies out there in the cold with NO customers.
Marie
Now that is legislation we can all agree on! I like the idea of breeders being rewarded for doing it right!
Not a bad idea as far as stopping puppy mills go and irresponsible breeding, but perhaps a bit too extreme? Would this apply to only purebreds? Would the mutt dog owner whose dog gets pregnant before they have had oppertunity to have it spayed be punished? In a perfect world it may not happen, but....would the puppies have to be turned over to rescue groups to be legally adopted? A law like that may also prevent some of the great "accidental" mixes we have. (Like my dogs!)Quote:
Originally posted by SpencerTheLion
I don't know if this would help, but what if the only legal means of getting a cat or a dog was thru rescues or responsible breeders? I'd be interested in knowing if anyone sees a way the intent to defeat backyard breeding could be bypassed. Who knows? Perhaps it could reduce the market for mauling dogs.
I realize over population is a problem and there should be away help take care of the problem. I just don't have a suggestion as to what it is.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SpencerTheLion
[BI am more concerned with people that sell cats and kittens than the ones that give them away. If communities and newspapers prevent people from putting ads of "Puppy for Sale" it might make a difference.
Good point!
That is a good point, but playing devil's advocate here, if there is no way to advertise for unwanted pups and adults, how many more would get dumped on the side of the road? I think that positive feedback and a reward system is an outstanding idea. Perhaps we could have a Pet Talk petition of that nature to present to all of our Congresspeople. I have never done a petition, but am willing to learn if anyone thinks it's a good idea.
Spencer, I've heard good responsible ethical breeders say the same as you...there isn't great profit in it for them. The puppymillers & profit- driven backyarders make money because they dispense with the responsibility of putting the welfare of their puppies (& dogs, in general) first. Maybe educating the dog-buying public should stress that paying a decent price to an approved breeder is also an investment in the soundness of their purchased puppy (in every way) & of the dog population, in general.Quote:
Originally posted by SpencerTheLion
There is probably no money in responsible breeding from what I have heard and seen.
I don't know if this would help, but what if the only legal means of getting a cat or a dog was thru rescues or responsible breeders?
Your second point that maybe the only legal way to obtain dogs should be thro' the approved breeders strikes a problem in my country with Competition Laws. These laws mean that no one group can have a monopoly of some commercial sector. These consumer-type laws are based on 'things' being bought & sold, and unfortunately not on 'living creatures' like dogs & cats. I think we need SPECIAL consumer-type laws governing the sale of companion animals...that could then make your idea of only some sources for acquiring animals legal, OK in relation to competition laws.
But I've got a horrible feeling it might lead to a legal minefield with all sorts of challenges in the law courts as to why some source was not approved...yet some other source was.
Our discussions show we all agree there's a huge problem re the welfare & breeding & sale of dogs & cats. The more we discuss it, I'm finding the more I understand it from all sorts of perspectives that PetTalkers are bringing up. Maybe this kind of discussion is the most important track to finding solutions. I hope people keep on adding to it.
Marie
I like the idea of breeders being rewarded for doing it
right.(and ethically), but the flip side of that is the AKC
should also provide an incentive to doing it right by
refusing to register these Mill Dogs of questionable
parentage. I was surfing a old favorite site of mine
today that I hadn't checked out for awhile and I found
an article that really went right to the heart of this
discussion on "who would oppose a puppy protection act".
The site is Golden Retrievers.com and the article is;
http://www.golden-retriever.com/mill2.htm
There was another article at /inquire1 that dealt with
the the abundance of mills in Pa. and all over the country.
So who would oppose this law and more importantly,Why?
Who stands to gain or lose by these additional provisions?
I do hope that other groups, and esp. decision making groups put the kind of thought and discussion into this that I have seen on this thread. Although everyone doesn't seem to agree exactly how to solve the problems, every opinion is respected and I think everyone is keeping an open mind and listening (or reading in this case) what everyone has to say. Really, what is important, is that whatever is done, it is best for the animals and the responsible, dedicated breeders.Quote:
Originally posted by Angels3
The more we discuss it, I'm finding the more I understand it from all sorts of perspectives that PetTalkers are bringing up. Maybe this kind of discussion is the most important track to finding solutions. I hope people keep on adding to it.
Marie
Lizbud, when I clicked on the link, the following message came up
http://golden-retriever.com/inquire2.html
"A DNS lookup error occurred. A host name was found but not an IP address."
Sounds like a good article....I'd like to get to that site & read it. I think we need all the ideas & opinions we can gather if good solutions/laws are to be figured out.
Marie
Well darn it Marie the link is not working. So just type in
Golden Retrievers in cyberspace on any search engine,
google, etc. Once at the site , page down to "getting a
puppy"and click on" Puppy Mills-They are real ! ", then click on
"Information and additional links" Page down to the articles.
The one I spoke of was called "Philadelphia Inquirer Dec 31st
follow up article on Puppy Mills and AKC ". Liz.
Thanks, Luzbud. I used Google as you suggested, followed your directions & found it. Great!:)
Marie
Marie,
I'm glad you found it. Isn't the GRIC site Great !!
I found the site when I first started to "surf the web"
and I am so impressed and heartened by the rescue
work they do for Golden Retrievers in particular, and
other needy pups as well. They have finally realized
a lifelong dream of building a large santuary for GRs
called "Goldentown" where more dogs can be fostered
and rehomed. I feel like I know Helen & Bob, but I've
never even talked to them. Oh, BTW, I found a great
idea on the site that showed how to build Styrofoam
steps to help Senior dogs get into a vehicle without
much effort. I'm going to use that idea for my dog.
(9 yrs old with hip & knee problems). Liz.
Lizbud, I just noticed what my butter fingers did to your name...'Luzbud!' Sorry. Yes, I think that's a fantastic site, too. Doesn't 'Goldenworld' sound wonderful.
And what a great coincidence...we've just been talking on our OzDogRescue list about the problems senior dogs have getting up & down stairs & in & out of cars. I'll pass on the idea about the Styrofoam stairs. Thanks.
We've got rescues coming out of our ears here at the moment. A little Tibetan Spaniel girl was rescued from busy traffic...no owner's been traced yet but she's happy being fostered & has the offer of 3 homes! Also, a breeder fell on hard times & suddenly we had to place 12 Tibetan Spaniels...all but 2 are now on their way to good homes. And we have a lovely big gentle Tibetan Mastiff that we have to transport from one state to another.
Marie
:)