# Curious question for breeders



## krystaltiger (Oct 6, 2004)

Here in Iowa they are finally taking steps to crack down on puppy mills. The governor is going to sign the new laws this week which ultimately makes people be more repsonsible by providing adequate food, water, shelter, care...things that should be *duh*

Well, I have some specific questions for those here are breeders, but due to the fact that these posts can bee seen by the world, I would like to ask in PM...any takers??

Thanks!


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Not a breeder, but interested in the crackdown.
What is the bill, do you have a link? The problem with this is the reputable breeders could be limited.

I agree~millers should be extinct. But not to the price of good, reputable breeders paying more because the millers made such a mess of dogs in the world. It would be great if there was a bill written that all reputable breeders could agree on to get rid of the millers.

PM? you asked this question on a public board, it should be public opinions that everyone can learn from.


----------



## krystaltiger (Oct 6, 2004)

Here is a link to the bill. Its not perfect, but its a start in the right direction:

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Co...Service=Billbook&ga=83&menu=text&hbill=HF2280


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Thanks for the link, I'll take some time reading it!
Does Iowa have many millers? I posted yesterday on another site why millers could get away with what they do...anyone else would be arrested for the horrid conditions the breeder animals are kept. Thank you for posting this!


----------



## krystaltiger (Oct 6, 2004)

Sadly there are tons of them.


----------



## JOSHUA SAMPSON (Feb 21, 2010)

162.12 Denial or revocation of license or registration.
12 18 A certificate of registration may be denied to any animal
12 19 shelter, pound, or animal shelter research facility and a
12 20 state license or certificate of registration may be denied
12 21 to any public auction, boarding kennel, commercial kennel,
12 22 research facility, pet shop, commercial breeder, or dealer, or
12 23 an existing certificate of registration or state license may
12 24 be revoked by the secretary if, after public hearing, it is
12 25 determined that the housing facilities or primary enclosures
12 26 are _*inadequate*_ under this chapter or if the feeding, watering,
12 27 cleaning, and housing practices at the pound, animal shelter,
12 28 public auction, pet shop, boarding kennel, commercial kennel,
12 29 research facility, or those practices by the commercial breeder
12 30 or dealer, are not in compliance with this chapter or with the
12 31 rules adopted pursuant to this chapter. The premises of each
12 32 registrant or state licensee or certificate holder shall be
12 33 open for inspection during normal business hours.

I skimmed the bill over and this seems to be the meat and potatoes of the bill. I just don't understand how they define "adequate" there does not seem to be a definition of what this means. who determines this. they spell out WHO they're targeting in the bill. but they dont seem to establish "exactly" what they want you to do. so under this guideline any inspector who just up and decides that you're not "adequate" can pull your license and fien you $500.00 but they must by law provide you with what they consider to be "adequate" after they revoke you. then if you dont fix it and are still operating it's a $1000.00 fine. and if you dont register with dept of agruculture you face a class a misdemeanor for every day you operate without a license. I'm not against regulation because that keeps people from abusing these awesome animals but this seems a little on the poorly written side to me.


----------



## JOSHUA SAMPSON (Feb 21, 2010)

But i'm also not necessarily for blanket regs. it does not even seem to establish what defines a comercial breeder except for noting that greyhounds are always comercial breeders. unless this is defined in another law.


----------



## JOSHUA SAMPSON (Feb 21, 2010)

seems it already passed. so, oh well.


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

> Does Iowa have many millers?


Yes, we do. I doubt we're the very worst in the country but we're pretty bad. Our agricultural base & Amish community are often involved in 'puppy farms' ie mills.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

It never ceases to amaze me how easily people can be convinced of things. Read the ordinances and laws in that link. HOLY COW! These are not just what you people want to call "Puppy Mills' being impacted. It is everyone who does anything with dogs. I know from personal experience how these laws are affecting people and how ignorant the people writing them can be . Here in LA they wrote up some real doozies in their ordinance changes that would have placed huge financial burdens on people who have been breeding and raising dogs for years. Most of the kennel impacted were legitimate, non-commercial kennels who really care about their animals. When we met with the people writing these ordinances, even they were shocked at the unintended consequences those ordinances would have had. We are still working with them and are hoping to make progress so that we can continue to afford to keep our animals. People need to know that it is DANGEROUS to paint everyone with the same brush. 

People who care about animals need to start to understand one thing. There is NO legal definition of the term "Puppy Mill". When Governments label laws using that term, we should all be capable of seeing the danger in it. Puppy Mill is a derogatory and inflammatory term, again, with no legal definition. It is used to inflame the emotions of people more than to make them actually THINK. If Government officials made laws labeled with derogatory racial terms , everyone would be up in arms about it, but they accept the Puppy Mill label without question. 

The AR people have done a really great job of labeling just about anyone who breeds dogs, a Puppy Mill. Most of the people have accepted this hook, line and sinker without question. No one has stopped to consider the collateral damage done and THAT is exactly what groups like PETA are hoping for.
WAKE UP. These laws violate people's rights. They are using the media to inflame the emotions of the public against dog breeders. Here in LA, the majority of the people affected by the currently proposed ordinance changes were legitimate breeders. Only a handful of Commercial Kennels operate in LA County but it was the rest of us who have been impacted. The County formed a "Puppy Mill Task Force" and only asked AR groups to advise them. Then they tried to remove every kennel's land zoning without due process! When that failed, they came up with ordinances that may look good to ignorant people in writing, but are downright FRIGHTENING when put into context. One of the ideas was to force breeders to spay and individually license retired females and they must be retired at eight years of age. Sounds good right? Well, if you have a kennel license in LA, individually licensed dogs do not fall under the umbrella of that kennel license. Dogs outside the kennel license are considered your pets and you are only allowed 3 . So, if you have four retired females, you would have been forced to get rid of one of them. You would have a very short time to comply and I can tell you, placing eight year old dogs is NOT easy. I personally, do not want to place my old girls, they stay here for life because this is their home. This part of the ordinance would have also made it impossible for us to take any dogs back who may have lost their homes. Why? Because they would have been individually licensed and not "breeding dogs" if they were spayed or neutered. They claimed the intention was to stop people from dumping their old dogs but the way it was written, it would have FORCED us to do just that. That is just one example, there are more that "look " good but would have driven many of the people trying to do things right, out of business.

Don't be so fast to celebrate these laws. The legal language and vagueness in many of them are dangerous in that they can be interpreted all kinds of different ways. That is the problem here as well. Anything the government does should be carefully scrutinized by the people they represent. We can all see where not paying attention has led us, these dog laws are no exception.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Thank you, Anne, for sharing detailed info and (unfortunately) personal experience to get people thinking rather than just emoting in order to help more of them realize what these sorts of laws really do.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Good post Vandal. I have not read the bill yet, but will. In Ohio we are still facing Senate Bill 95, so this is all over. It will effect even those of us who do not live in Iowa. It is like a domino effect. The ordinance is passed here, and then ten more places, then 100 more places. You get the idea. 

It is hard not to be emotional. But I will go and read before getting nuts.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Ok, I read it. I do not want to nit pick the whole item but, 

"A commercial kennel shall not purchase a dog
7 6 or cat from a commercial establishment that does not have a
7 7 valid authorization issued or renewed under this chapter or a
7 8 similar authorization issued or renewed by another state." 

And also for a commercial breeder. So if you choose to purchase outside of the state you are in, they better have a similar authorization issued by that state. I wonder what that would mean for someone wishing to use an outside stud or import a dog from another country. I don't know but I think that is rather restrictive.


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

Anne, kudos for the wealth of vitally important info you've provided. I agree with what you posted, though IMO Iowa ranks shamefully high in the # of puppy mills even when using stringent criteria to define 'puppy mills/farms'. Note that I strongly agree with your opposition to casually labeling every breeder we disagree with a miller or byb.

I haven't read the law. My comments weren't intended to support or oppose it. Frankly, I'm not optimistic just b/c of all the lamebrain chuckle headed attempts I've seen locally & elsewhere.

Pet over population is (IMO) overwhelmingly due to under commitment on the part of buyers & breeders. None of the laws/solutions I've seen address this or even acknowledge it. WHY are too many pups & kits bred? Simply b/c they're eagerly snapped up, even at premium prices, only to be dumped when they're inconvenient or the novelty has faded. All too often the dumpers go on to quickly acquire another pup or kit, something bigger, smaller, fuzzier, silkier, funnier, faster, braver, smarter etc. Of the dumpers I've known, every stink blinkin one of them could relay a litany of their dog's faults while not once acknowledging their own failure & lapses of responsibility.


----------



## JOSHUA SAMPSON (Feb 21, 2010)

seems like bad legislation to me, if not just very poorly written.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Politics in general are so confusing.They give me headaches :headbang:
Yet, I passed U.S. Government with flying colors....:shocked:

All I know is: Puppymills(The ones who have dogs in cages with no water, food, and dogs in poor conditions)BYB=Backyard Breeders are BAD!

Responsible, Respected, Reptuable, Licensed, Trained, Knowledgable breeders are GOOD.


----------

