# What are your thoughts on this?



## WarrantsWifey (Dec 18, 2010)

_*This is a new ordinance in my city. What are your thoughts?? *_

*Council passes ordinance requiring Clarksville breeders to get licenses*


> The City Council on Thursday passed into law two ordinances aimed at cracking down on puppy mills.
> 
> The first bans the sale of animals in public places such as flea markets, parking lots and the side of the road; the other requires anyone who sells litters of dogs and cats to purchase a breeder's license for an annual $250 fee. Those already licensed under state law are exempt.
> 
> ...


Link: Council passes ordinance requiring Clarksville breeders to get licenses | The Leaf Chronicle – Clarksville, Tenn., and Fort Campbell | theleafchronicle.com


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

Some broadly defined laws like that throw out the baby with the bath water.


----------



## WarrantsWifey (Dec 18, 2010)

PaddyD said:


> Some broadly defined laws like that throw out the baby with the bath water.


Never heard that saying.


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

WarrantsWifey said:


> Never heard that saying.


*Throw out the baby with the bath water* is an idiomatic expression used to suggest an avoidable error in which something good is eliminated when trying to get rid of something bad,[1] or in other words, rejecting the essential along with the inessential.[2]
It means they are trying to eliminate the bad parts but aren't careful to preserve the good.


----------



## Mac's Mom (Jun 7, 2010)

This will probably ruffle some feathers (you've heard that saying before right  

When dealing with something as important as a living being, there should be license requirements.


----------



## Greydusk (Mar 26, 2010)

Just a question, if a puppy mill buys the $250 license fee, they can continue their breeding practices?...


----------



## BR870 (May 15, 2011)

Greydusk said:


> Just a question, if a puppy mill buys the $250 license fee, they can continue their breeding practices?...


Sounds like it...

Its kinda like the florist license that my wife has to get. Its really a revenue gathering scheme...


----------



## Greydusk (Mar 26, 2010)

BR870 said:


> Sounds like it...
> 
> Its kinda like the florist license that my wife has to get. Its really a revenue gathering scheme...



Yeah, not sure I really get how this combats puppy mills. I agree, sounds like a revenue gathering ploy.


----------



## WarrantsWifey (Dec 18, 2010)

Yea, they wrote up a petition here, I couldn't bring myself to sign it, because I saw the good as well as the bad. 

I think this, mixed with our low income spay and neuter program, should decrease on people breeding their pets because they just want one of their puppies.


----------



## Mac's Mom (Jun 7, 2010)

WarrantsWifey said:


> Yea, they wrote up a petition here, I couldn't bring myself to sign it, because I saw the good as well as the bad.
> 
> I think this, mixed with our low income spay and neuter program, should decrease on people breeding their pets because they just want one of their puppies.


I'd sign it. If it prevented one irresponsible litter...it would be worth it to me.

I think it should be more then simply purchasing a license. There should be a list of requirements, tests and inspections.


----------



## Mac's Mom (Jun 7, 2010)

One immediate negative I can think of is after *buying* a license...people can market themselves as "licensed" which will give the impression of credibility


----------



## Greydusk (Mar 26, 2010)

Who would enforce it? AC/police? I wonder if it would really discourage those "one time" breeders, I mean unless someone turned them in, who would know if they had a license or not? They only have pups on the ground for about 8 weeks (less in some cases). Then after that all evidence is pretty much gone. Then as Carrie said, it could add a sense of legitimacy to some less than reputable breeders.


----------



## WarrantsWifey (Dec 18, 2010)

I wonder too, who is going to enforce it? I think it would be a deterrent for a few but then your right, some people may use it as a sense of creditably.


----------



## Mac's Mom (Jun 7, 2010)

Wow..this is very thought provoking.

As far as enforcement...thats tough. I'm not a fan of gov't agencies since they aren't generally efficient and tax payers are already overburdened. It would have to be a privately funded not profit organization.


----------



## WarrantsWifey (Dec 18, 2010)

I think it's a good thing and a bad thing. So I know it's thought provoking and I wanted to know every-bodies opinion. I couldn't sign the petition to oppose the new ordinance. I hope it will do some good around here, all these pit puppies being sold for 250 dollars in walmart parking lot is a sad sight to see over and over again.


----------



## Mac's Mom (Jun 7, 2010)

WarrantsWifey said:


> I think it's a good thing and a bad thing. So I know it's thought provoking and I wanted to know every-bodies opinion. I couldn't sign the petition to oppose the new ordinance. I hope it will do some good around here, all these pit puppies being sold for 250 dollars in walmart parking lot is a sad sight to see over and over again.


Ohhh...I thought the petition you *didn't* sign was *for* the new ordinance. Yeah I wouldn't have signed it either.

PS I love thought provoking threads - especially when my dogs are napping


----------



## Mac's Mom (Jun 7, 2010)

Oh also about Pits - the Humane Society in our area is full of them. Breaks my heart.


----------



## WarrantsWifey (Dec 18, 2010)

Mac's Mom said:


> Oh also about Pits - the Humane Society in our area is full of them. Breaks my heart.


You know my story with Kismet, pulling her from the shelter. It broke my heart. 

I had stopped one day to look at the puppies. Seeing what there was. (Wasn't going to buy). They had pitts that they were selling for 250, they said they owned both parents. I asked if they were registered. They said yes, with CKC, I asked if I could see the parents and asked if the puppies were papered. They said no, they had to "rehome" the parent's because of the landlord. They said they didn't register the puppies because it would cost them money, and paper was only paper. They could verbally guarantee these pups were gonna be amazing. 

This is often here, always on the side of the road, in a parking lot somewhere that runs down our busiest street in the city. It's sad. It's hot out. People just trying to make a quick buck off puppies.


----------



## Mac's Mom (Jun 7, 2010)

WarrantsWifey said:


> You know my story with Kismet, pulling her from the shelter. It broke my heart.
> 
> I had stopped one day to look at the puppies. Seeing what there was. (Wasn't going to buy). They had pitts that they were selling for 250, they said they owned both parents. I asked if they were registered. They said yes, with CKC, I asked if I could see the parents and asked if the puppies were papered. They said no, they had to "rehome" the parent's because of the landlord. They said they didn't register the puppies because it would cost them money, and paper was only paper. They could verbally guarantee these pups were gonna be amazing.
> 
> This is often here, always on the side of the road, in a parking lot somewhere that runs down our busiest street in the city. It's sad. It's hot out. People just trying to make a quick buck off puppies.


That truly sucks. 

I know you're hoping for lots of different opinions...at least this comment bumps it


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Ok, this will stop NO irresponsible litters from being whelped. This will not stop anyone who does not bother to shell out for the license. 

My breeders license, costs me $50 and I get 5 dog licenses with it, and can buy additional licenses for 1$ each. Dog licenses here cost $10. So it is not oppressive. But it does point out where the breeders are -- the ones that follow the law. And if they wanted to make a new law limiting the number of animals, there I am on the top of the list, having done everything lawful to date. 

Last year they required a vendor's license as well.

But the license does not require that I know the law concerning selling puppies, nor that I own property or have the dogs where the zoning is appropriate, or am inspected, or that they are vetted, or anything really. 

It sounds like your ordinance is no different. People who want to remain lawful will by the permit to raise puppies. It will cost $250. They will charge $50 more per puppy to cover the cost. If they make that back with one litter, awesome. If they have two more litters, so much the better. 

People are not going to watch their dog get tied with a marauding neighbor dog and run out the next day and purchase their breeding permit. 

It will cost the buyers money, and any responsible people who breed their dog by the law, if they purchase the license and have no puppies, or fewer puppies, or can't sell the puppies for the added fee. 

I do not think buyers will go farther away for $50, so I really doubt it will drive business away. I use 50 dollars, because you would split that up amongst the litter and common litter sizes are five and seven. I would want that to come out of one litter because, with breeding there are no guarantees when it comes to whether or not you will have a litter out of each breeding.


----------



## WarrantsWifey (Dec 18, 2010)

Mac's Mom said:


> That truly sucks.
> 
> I know you're hoping for lots of different opinions...at least this comment bumps it


I just know I see one side. I'm for it, my mom thinks it's an invasion of our constitutional rights to own and sell "property".


----------



## Mac's Mom (Jun 7, 2010)

WarrantsWifey said:


> I just know I see one side. I'm for it, my mom thinks it's an invasion of our constitutional rights to own and sell "property".


calling living beings "property" should be in 
*What is the most annoying, revolting, ridiculous, or insulting...* thread...no offense to your mom.

And to legally sell items you are supposes to buy a license...its called a sellers permit


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I can sell my bicycle without a permit or license. It is called a casual sale. I can grow tomatoes and sell them, raise chickens for eggs and sell them. If someone steals my chickens, they are stealing my property. 

Property rights protect property, that includes dogs. Owning property is something that we should not take lightly and we should not villify. 

Puppies are cute and fluffy and no one likes to think of them like you would an inanimate object. But property can be a living breathing creature. It goes along with ownership. I own my dogs, I am not their guardian. I maintain and protect my property and that includes the critters.


----------



## Mac's Mom (Jun 7, 2010)

selzer said:


> I can sell my bicycle without a permit or license. It is called a casual sale. I can grow tomatoes and sell them, raise chickens for eggs and sell them. If someone steals my chickens, they are stealing my property.
> 
> Property rights protect property, that includes dogs. Owning property is something that we should not take lightly and we should not villify.
> 
> Puppies are cute and fluffy and no one likes to think of them like you would an inanimate object. But property can be a living breathing creature. It goes along with ownership. I own my dogs, I am not their guardian. I maintain and protect my property and that includes the critters.


I do see your point. People get away with "casual" sales but they are illegal.


----------



## WarrantsWifey (Dec 18, 2010)

Mac's Mom said:


> calling living beings "property" should be in
> *What is the most annoying, revolting, ridiculous, or insulting...* thread...no offense to your mom.
> 
> And to legally sell items you are supposes to buy a license...its called a sellers permit


No I agree, I don't see them as property, I see them as family.


----------



## Mac's Mom (Jun 7, 2010)

in my state "garage/rummage sales" are illegal but you see them everywhere

legal does not equate to enforced


----------



## Deuce (Oct 14, 2010)

I think it's a good step personally. $250.00 is a lot of money but should be well worth it for someone who is breeding responsibly to better the breed. I do wonder, however, how it will be enforced. Here in AACO Maryland it's already law that you cannot sell animals at flea markets or on the roadside and the county police along with animal control enforce it VERY well.


----------



## Mac's Mom (Jun 7, 2010)

WarrantsWifey said:


> No I agree, I don't see them as property, I see them as family.


I know ya do!

Property is easily used, bought, sold, stored, and disposed of


----------



## WarrantsWifey (Dec 18, 2010)

Oh dear GOSH, my mother cross posted it and now all her dog friends are going at it. Mainly at me because I support the ordinance. GAH. I hope this one doesn't turn into a political attack like the one on facebook did. :-/


----------



## WarrantsWifey (Dec 18, 2010)

I was just called sexist because I stand by the ordinance and I only have a "male" that I may one day stud. And I won't be subject to these laws because because I won't be the one selling puppies. OMG. I'm so frustrated.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

I would have to be against the ordinance as well. People who are ethical breeders will buy their license, but those pups for sale along the road? In the parking lot of wal-mart? They will still be there. Does this proposed ordinance say what the penalty will be? 
The puppy mills will buy their license and write off the expense on their taxes. The ethical small-time breeder like Selzer and all those recommended by this forum? They will either scrape the money up somewhere or get out of breeding.
I just found out yesterday that those kind of sales are illegal here. I never knew it; it's been illegal for about 8 years. Every weekend during the summer, there are at least 4-5 people selling litters of puppies, just in the wal-mart parking lot. That's not counting those selling them out of the back of their vehicles along the road, near the resorts or where ever.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

EEEK.. I hate to see people argue that "pets aren't property" If pets are elevated above property, then who gets to decide how they are treated? Not their owners - free beings don't have owners. What rights will these animals have? will we still be able to call them animals or will they be "K9 Americans"?

Will someone be able to file a lawsuit on behalf of your dog because you only feed a 3-star rated food and the dog across the street has 5-star meals at the bistro down the street? 

Are they more than just goods? Yes, they are beloved companions and sentient beings. What about cattle? Pigs? Goats? etc etc. They are sentient beings, should they no longer be property as well? That is the main push of Animal Rights groups that want to change the laws. After all, if a cow isn't property or livestock, then what right do we have to kill them?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Mac's Mom said:


> I do see your point. People get away with "casual" sales but they are illegal.


This is an exerpt out of the brochure they send you when you get your vendor's license (Yes, I have one):

Casual Sales are not subject to sales or use
tax. A casual sale occurs when a person sells
an item that s/he previously purchased for
his/her personal use. For example, a person
selling a table and chair set which she bought
five years ago and used in her home is making
a casual sale, one not subject to sales tax. On
the other hand, a person who purchases used
household goods at a yard sale and a few weeks
later sells them at her own yard sale is making
retail sales and needs a vendor’s license. The
sale of a motor vehicle, a registered watercraft,
an outboard motor (ten horsepower or more),
a snowmobile or an all-purpose vehicle never
qualifies as a casual sale.

Ok, a person who a litter of puppies/an oops litter really does not have to pay sales tax. That is considered a casual sales. Kind of like casual sex. They are not doing it for any greater good, and they are not set up to make it anything more than what it is. But if they get a kennel license, if they are doing it for a purpose -- to produce puppies for working or for showing or for hunting or for regular sales -- then they have to pay sales tax. Like everything else the government puts their paw in, it makes perfect sense.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

selzer said:


> . Like everything else the government puts their paw in, it makes perfect sense.


we have a saying at work: "It makes perfect sense as long as you don't think about it"


----------



## LARHAGE (Jul 24, 2006)

This is just another way for the money grubbing government to stick their greasy hand out for your hard earned money, this ridiculous ordinance will be adhered to by only the responsible people that don't need policing, kind of like registering your firearms, wonder how many gang bangers register their weapons.


----------

