# AVMA Announces Model Bill for Regulating Dog Breeders



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

*United Kennel Club: AVMA*


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Uhg, it gets worse and worse.


----------



## Smiling_Shepherd (Aug 23, 2010)

Large entities and bureaucrats always have political and financial agendas that rarely seem to turn out good for anyone other than them. Recent examples.

1. Egg salmonella scare - caused by large corporation + bureaucratic failure to enforce existing legislation

Outcome - Large corporate & government failure leads to these same entities writing & pushing to implement new laws and regulations that will micromanage & tax all small egg producers out of business 

2. H1N1 scare - caused by large organization and bureaucratic failure killed or severely injured {2400+} more of the public than the supposed pandemic {625} 

Outcome - Large organization & government failure leads to new proposed laws and regulations to force people, including all health care providers to take potentially dangerous vaccinations. Regular Flu vaccine & H1N1 vaccine combined for this year flu shots and not widely publicized. Most vaccines used in the US now made in China (See US Pet Food poisoning deaths, lead in children's toys, etc. etc. result from products made in China)


----------



## GSD Fan (Sep 20, 2010)

AgileGSD said:


> *United Kennel Club: AVMA*
> 
> *American Veterinary Medical Association--Are they turning their backs on dog breeders?*
> _by Sara Chisnell-Voigt, UKC Legal Counsel_
> ...


 
I didn't read everything and won't have time to til after class, but I want to throw my two cents in on this.

I actually think that is a good thing. It is talking about stuff like breeding siminars and stuff, right?

I think a breeder should know as much as possible about breeding. Breeding isn't just a hobby for some people, it's a business. And when people run a business, they are qualified in some way. 

Also, about the large volume breeders, what are the chances of them being a reputable breeder and a BYB or puppy mill? I think the chances of them being a BYB or puppy mill is greater than them being a reputable breeder, not saying that it's wrong for a breeder to produce 6 or more litters a year as long as they do it the right way.

And another thing. I think that there should be a program for breeders, a program that those who are qualified could enter and get a license to become a breeder. Just like vet school. Regardless of whether or not a breeder is doing it for profit or love of the breed, it is a profession. 

That's how I feel on what I've read so far. It might sound ignorant and uninformed, but that's just how I feel.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

So you support....
...vets having to approve a breeding? Are they going to add a 5th year to vet school so vets have to actually learn something about behavior, training, determining breed worthiness, breed specific physical, temperament and health traits, pedigrees, bloodlines, etc...? And if breeding programs are now going to be subject to the whims of the personal agendas of vets, are they going to do anything about the vets who are fanatical for early spay/neuter and feel any intentional breeding is the devil's work?
...people's HOMES being subject to unannounced inspections without a warrant (in direct violation of the 4th Ammendment) by whomever the local municipality decides is qualified (HSUS worker? PETA supporter?)
...breeder's being subject to meeting criteria laid out by bureaucrats who don't know squat about dogs and that we all know are easily swayed by $ and pressure from bleeding heart constituants (who also often don't know squat about dogs).
...breeders being unable to mount any defense against any violations they are accused of (guilty until proven innocent.. and no chance to prove innocent)? 

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Not a single breeder regulation bill that's come out in recent years has threatened ONLY those they claim they are after (the BYBs and puppy mills) without also seriously threatening the good, responsible breeders.

I don't mean this personally, but frankly the trend of "I didn't read it all (or consider what it really means) but I support it" is a huge part of the problem.


----------



## GSD Fan (Sep 20, 2010)

Chris Wild said:


> So you support....
> ...vets having to approve a breeding? Are they going to add a 5th year to vet school so vets have to actually learn something about behavior, training, determining breed worthiness, breed specific physical, temperament and health traits, pedigrees, bloodlines, etc...? And if breeding programs are now going to be subject to the whims of the personal agendas of vets, are they going to do anything about the vets who are fanatical for early spay/neuter and feel any intentional breeding is the devil's work?
> ...people's HOMES being subject to unannounced inspections without a warrant (in direct violation of the 4th Ammendment) by whomever the local municipality decides is qualified (HSUS worker? PETA supporter?)
> ...breeder's being subject to meeting criteria laid out by bureaucrats who don't know squat about dogs and that we all know are easily swayed by $ and pressure from bleeding heart constituants (who also often don't know squat about dogs).
> ...


If that's what it means, then no, I don't support it.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Chris,

That is an awesome post.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Chris Wild said:


> I don't mean this personally, but frankly the trend of "I didn't read it all (or consider what it really means) but I support it" is a huge part of the problem.


 I agree. People are so in the mindset of "something has to be done!!!" but the truth is, there are already regulations for commercial breeders and there are already anti-cruelty laws. Pushing for further and further restrictions is going to mean that in the future, the only breeders will be commercial breeders. They will be the only ones able to afford the licensing, fees, etc and provide the facilities that meet USDA guidelines.


----------



## rjvamp (Aug 23, 2008)

so annoying when laws on the books don't get the support needed to enforce yet the sensational agendas get the press and support - well until financial support is needed...oh I guess that means we might need to create jobs with more tax dollars....or more fees of some sort.....how ridiculous!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

What gets me is that posts about nasty neighbors and different collars and rehoming dogs with issues get tons of responses, and this post and many like it get a handful of responses. 

Like the majority of the people on this message board really do not believe that this will affect them much. 

If they pass these laws, they will affect us ALL. 

First of all these laws mean a WHOLE lot tax dollars, in organization, jobs, etc. Some of that will be generated by higher fees, higher fees for intact animals and such. The rest of it, and probably the majority of it will come from tax payers in raised taxes.

Next, a lot of the best breeders will throw up their hands and stop breeding all together, or they will cut down their breeding to only support themselves and a few friends, one litter maybe in two or three years. This means fewer well-bred dogs to choose from. 

With the added money that responsible breeders will be expected to pay out, and the decrease in well-bred pups out there, breeders will increase the price of dogs. 
A dog that now costs 1500$ might cost $2500-$5000, depending. 

Puppy mills will still exist, in fact, they will INCREASE the number of puppies they produce to offset the added costs and such, and to fill the gap left behind by the better breeders who no longer want to participate. 

Veterinarians will ok breedings, because if they do not someone else will, and they will lose money by losing the customer. 

The criminals keeping loads of breeding dogs in filthy conditions will continue to do what they have always done. They are not following the laws now, and new laws will not be followed either.

People having a pet that they want to breed or "accidently" allow to breed will not be stopped by any of this -- bitches will not be wearing chastidy belts that only vets have the keys to. So the BYBs will continue to have their puppies. 

The ONLY outcome to all of this I can see is fewer litters from reputable breeders, increase in the costs of a purebred dog, and increase in tax dollars used.


----------



## rusti_knight (Aug 2, 2002)

Guess it's changed a little bit since I was in tech school, running around UIUC's vet school for two semesters with the vet students. We, as a group, were never lectured to the extent of spaying/neutering every dog that hit our exam table (that I remember). And while I was in private practice, we never did. 

Save the one older vet that let a couple who owned a dachshund with a bad, bad case of parrot mouth have it when they said they were going to breed.

Guess it's time for a disappointed letter.


----------



## Hunther's Dad (Mar 13, 2010)

Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, AVMA. If all the animal breeders go out of business, we won't need veterinarians anymore, will we?

You might want to practice saying, "Do you want fries with that?"


----------



## Good_Karma (Jun 28, 2009)

What does it mean that it is a "model bill"?


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

This is like many other areas where they are intent on PASSING new laws, rather than being intent on ENFORCING the laws that are already on the books. 

You have kennels like the one in PA that Biden got his puppy from, which are producing large numbers of dogs and have failed inspections time and time again for having dirty conditions, dog not being taken care of, no shots, missing records, etc. yet they are still in business. WTF. There's obviously a kink in the system.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

selzer said:


> What gets me is that posts about nasty neighbors and different collars and rehoming dogs with issues get tons of responses, and this post and many like it get a handful of responses.


Could be just because there isn't much to say other than, "Yep, that sucks."


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Chris Wild said:


> I don't mean this personally, but frankly the trend of "I didn't read it all (or consider what it really means) but I support it" is a huge part of the problem.


Yes, this is frightening. "I don't have time to read it.....but I'll blindly support something that strips peoples' rights and makes it even MORE complicated for GOOD breeders to breed good dogs..." I'm not even a breeder and I *do* take it personally. People admittedly won't really delve into these issues thinking they know who is "qualified" and who isn't (as if that's anyone's decision to make anyway....) 

*shakes head*


----------



## Hunther's Dad (Mar 13, 2010)

Liesje said:


> Yes, this is frightening. "I don't have time to read it.....but I'll blindly support something that strips peoples' rights and makes it even MORE complicated for GOOD breeders to breed good dogs..." I'm not even a breeder and I *do* take it personally. People admittedly won't really delve into these issues thinking they know who is "qualified" and who isn't (as if that's anyone's decision to make anyway....)
> 
> *shakes head*


Agreed. And why does a politician who's never bred a litter (or may never have even _owned_ a dog in his life) get to tell somebody how to run their business?

This bill has the stench of PETA hanging around it, I'd guess.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Hunther's Dad said:


> Agreed. And why does a politician who's never bred a litter (or may never have even _owned_ a dog in his life) get to tell somebody how to run their business?
> 
> This bill has the stench of PETA hanging around it, I'd guess.


Theres one politician I remember who dumped his pregnant GSD at a shelter...he was going to breed her so didn't spay her after adopting her which was against SC law
Sen. Kent Williams Defends Right to Dump Dog at a Public Shelter | Animal Law Coalition


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I find it terribly frightening that veterinarians would think they know more about breeding and bloodlines than breeders do. My vets don't' even seem capable of reading the 2006 AAHA guidelines for vaccines. How could they possibly know all the different criteria for all the breeds?


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

In an effort to fight this bill and others like it, the dog clubs and dog owners in Illinois have banded together to fight for our rights to breed and own and train dogs.

illinoisfederationdogclubs&owners is the website. You can join our fight -- you don't even have to live in Illinois to be a member! At least become a frienc on our Facebook page. We can use those numbers to show interest in our work to the legislators.


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

Hunther's Dad said:


> And why does a politician who's never bred a litter (or may never have even _owned_ a dog in his life) get to tell somebody how to run their business?


They are politicians. It is their job to micromanage EVERY aspect of people's lives, telling how, when, and where to do everything because they are OBVIOUSLY smarter than the average American. The huge national debt is evidence of this higher level of intelligence.

And I wouldn't count on the Constitution stopping this bill either. There are many laws in effect right now that are in blatant disregard to what the Constitution says.

.....and I will step down from my soap box now  .....


----------

