# New Federal Regulations on Breeders (proposed bill in Congress)



## Honeybee1999 (Mar 2, 2006)

Just thought I'd share this here and see what everyone's thoughts are. It specifies when and how often a female can be bred and how many litters she can have in her lifetime, specifies that core vaccines as described by AAHA must be given, and that heartworm preventive meds must be given, among other things. 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4693/text/ih?overview=closed&format=xml

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## car2ner (Apr 9, 2014)

It seems that some of these ideas are things I already look for in a responsible breeder BUT some of these ideas are too general that it would be impractical if not harmful for some breeders. Like unfettered access to the outdoor during day time hours. Most of our pets don't even get that! 

Even better than these regulations would be an educated consumer base. Most people spend more time researching their next car than researching about the animals that will be with their family for the next decade or more.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Good luck reinforcing


----------



## tim_s_adams (Aug 9, 2017)

In the US you have to embalm a body before it can be cremated, gory and a touchy subject I know, but entirely unnecessary, and law only due to strong lobbying years ago. Also in my state, to serve any kind of food item you are required by law to have a certain size hot water heater, and at least a triple stainless sink to wash dishes in, under the guise that this makes us somehow healthier or less likely to be sickened by the food being served. This is just to prepare fresh sandwiches mind you! But I worked at a bakery/catering company in Brazil that had no hot water at all, and they prepared cakes and meat-based finger foods, mini pizzas, and sandwiches in the same facility daily, and they've operated for 15+ years without a single complaint or reported illness. So one has to wonder...

The Animal Welfare Act was originally passed in 1966, but has been amended in 1970, 1976, 1985, 1990, 2002, 2007, 2008, and 2013. One has to wonder if anyone really knows what's in the current version, let alone how viable or effective any of the existing or proposed regulations really are. Or if these regulations are strictly and evenly enforced...somehow I doubt it!

This current amendment adds to the existing text without removing or replacing anything there already...so no, I don't agree with it at all! That the original act was passed with good intentions I have no doubt. But when legislation has been amended that many times, without a complete overhaul, is IMHO never a "good" thing.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I do NOT agree with it at all. It is not just heartworm (I don't give heartworm and have not had a heartworm issue), but also flea and tick preventatives. That is requiring breeding dogs to have poison put into their systems. Not all of us agree with vaccine regimines either. 

And I think it is a sign of being hearty if a dog does not need to go to the vet every year. Some of my girls are there more than once a year, some can go 3 years or more. I had the vet come out to my place to do vaccines this past year. Vets might like to look at your dog every year whether it needs it or not, but why should this be a requirement of breeding dogs? If it is humane, and necessary, it should be the law for ALL dogs. 

And the baloney about socializing the dog so much each day. How will they enforce that? This is a touchy feely thing, but it is not in the best interest of dogs. Whatever. Their idea of who is dealer or whatever is anyone who produces a pup for sale. Or something like that. 

Animal cruelty is animal cruelty. What they require for breeders they should require for EVERYONE. Because the act of breeding is not cruel. And breeders do not have a monopoly on animal cruelty. If it is cruel not to have in/out access for a breeder's dog, then it is cruel for a pet. And the same is true for everything. We need less regulations, and more enforcement. Only pass regulations you can and will enforce.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

Selzer how often do you test your dogs for heartworm if they aren't on preventive?


----------



## WateryTart (Sep 25, 2013)

car2ner said:


> It seems that some of these ideas are things I already look for in a responsible breeder BUT some of these ideas are too general that it would be impractical if not harmful for some breeders. Like unfettered access to the outdoor during day time hours. Most of our pets don't even get that!
> 
> Even better than these regulations would be an educated consumer base. Most people spend more time researching their next car than researching about the animals that will be with their family for the next decade or more.


I agree. I don't like legislating these types of things because I think it has the potential to harm breeders who are already doing the right things and I don't believe in government micromanagement. That's a slippery slope, and it's serious micromanagement to codify how many minutes must be spent with the dogs daily. 

On the other hand, it's hard not to think that if we didn't have breeders who didn't vet their animals, who didn't provide basic preventative care (testing and titers if not preventative meds and vaccines), who didn't bother to spend time with their animals building a bond but instead relegate them to the outdoors - if we didn't have this kind of lazy and irresponsible husbandry, nobody would feel a need to start legislating breeders in such a way.

So I am inclined to blame the bad breeders for ruining it for everyone else, even though I'm against this kind of legislation. I agree with car2ner that consumers who are educated and insist on only supporting high quality, humane programs are our best bet.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

Thecowboysgirl said:


> Selzer how often do you test your dogs for heartworm if they aren't on preventive?


FWIW Mako can't be on HW preventative (triggers his Seizures). He is tested 4 times a year (both antigen and microfilaria) per conversations with my vet.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

WateryTart said:


> I
> So I am inclined to blame the bad breeders for ruining it for everyone else, even though I'm against this kind of legislation. I agree with car2ner that consumers who are educated and insist on only supporting high quality, humane programs are our best bet.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


This has nothing to do with bad breeders. There are plenty of rules on the books to take care of abuse. This is AR supported and written control intended to make breeding so expensive and impossible that the good breeders can no longer do it.


----------



## WateryTart (Sep 25, 2013)

lhczth said:


> This has nothing to do with bad breeders. There are plenty of rules on the books to take care of abuse. This is AR supported and written control intended to make breeding so expensive and impossible that the good breeders can no longer do it.


Oh I fully recognize AR is behind this junk, and I strongly disagree with their stances. It isn't a single-faceted issue. But I do think bad breeders give the AR folks plenty of ammunition. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Thecowboysgirl said:


> Selzer how often do you test your dogs for heartworm if they aren't on preventive?


I used to test them whenever I took them in for anything, and before I sold/rehomed an adult dog. But they always came back negative. 

I will check a dog whenever I do bloodwork for any reason. So far, maybe I've been lucky, and maybe I am just far enough north that heartworms are not as prevalent here. Be that as it may be. I do not believe in poisoning a dog as a preventative measure. 

I don't alter animals as a preventative for cancer, because it causes other cancers. I do not put pesticides into their blood stream to prevent flea infestations or tick diseases. I don't tack stomachs to prevent bloat -- I knew a guy who did this and the intestine died in there, and the dog died, for a preventative measure. It was a puppy. Dead. I don't spay to prevent pyometra. If my bitch gets pyo, I will take them to the vet and if at all possible treat it with antibiotics and then spay a few months later. So far, I haven't had to worry about it. 

Rabies is a zoonotic disease that is a danger to the public health. For the government to require pet dogs and cats to be vaccinated against the disease can be a responsible use of government power. Singling out a group of animal owners, breeders, and demanding that they use preventatives, some of which have had devastating effects on dogs, is not a responsible use of the government's power. 

I think the heartworm test costs approx $40. Heartworm doses cost better than $10/per. If you test once per year, you are still better off than putting all that pesticide in your dog, unless you have a serious issue in your area. Frankly, I think they have blown the disease out of proportion.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

WateryTart said:


> Oh I fully recognize AR is behind this junk, and I strongly disagree with their stances. It isn't a single-faceted issue. But I do think bad breeders give the AR folks plenty of ammunition.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk[/QUOTE
> 
> ...


----------



## Honeybee1999 (Mar 2, 2006)

I agree that this bill is a prime example of government overreach, and definitely hints of animal rights activist involvement. I see what they are trying to do in preventing "puppy mill" conditions, if those even truly exist. I had to scratch my head at the "unfettered access to the outdoors" part. I don't allow my dogs freedom to go outside whenever they want, and they are spoiled pets. That could actually be dangerous due to weather conditions, theft, bad people wanting to harm dogs and throwing bad things into the yard, etc. I always supervise them outside. 

So I'm thinking we all need to call our representatives and tell them not to vote for this bill. Also we need to share it because I don't think many people know about this.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

Given the state of Congress at the moment, I'm not so worried much will happen with this bill, but I guess they often manage to sneak on riders. 

I think economics alone is a huge driver and that if people stopped buying puppy mill dogs, there would be no more puppy mill dogs. If people realized the value in a true-to-breed, health checked, purebred dog, and were willing to pay decent dollar for it, good breeders would prevail. As it stands, there's good economics in pumping out a bunch of puppy mill or so called byb dogs and selling them for $500 each, and very little economic sense in breeding health checked, house raised, proven stock that are raised in the home and given top veterinary care.

Laws won't make much difference. I would love to see people pumping out the huge litters of pound pups in certain areas get stopped somehow. I really almost never run into a "puppy mill" dog- they are all "rescue retail" (ie byb... sorta) dogs - which is worse/better, I don't really know.


----------



## Honeybee1999 (Mar 2, 2006)

I think the puppy mill puppies are usually sold in pet stores or online. Designer mutts, etc. Then you have the BYB that put their random dogs together to make mutts or sometimes purebred poor examples of their breeds. They sell their puppies for a few hundred bucks off Craigslist. Then if there are any left they dump them at the pound. 

I have no idea why the general public confuses these people with those who are good breeders, who health test the parents, who do their best to find good homes for their puppies, who will take their puppies back at any age for any reason. Maybe those breeders are rare. Maybe the AR activists and Adopt-don't-shop crowd have convinced everyone that everyone who breeds dogs are taking homes from dogs in shelters, so they must all be evil and heartless, etc. It is a troubling trend and I wish I knew how to combat it. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Jenny720 (Nov 21, 2014)

I don’t think it’s fair that good responsible breeders have to be held responsible and punished because of irresponsible pet owners who dump their dogs and puppy mills/backyard breeders. Irresponsible owners, puppy mills and backyard breeders are the ones responsible for all the dogs without a home but yet so many focus on breeders with disdain. 
Those who do not care about the dogs and do it solely for profit will do it anyway. I’m all for shutting down puppy mills though. There are pet stores who sell purebred pup for more then a reputable breeder with parents not health checked and people pay. There was a town near by that everyone banned together and protested the local puppy store. The puppy store that had been there quite awhile - closed up shop and left. If everyone Protested their local puppy store they would have no where to go.


----------

