And this is so awful because we might actually do away with puppy mills and the danged backyard breeders that sell their pups outside of Walmart???  As long as us humans consider animals to be "commodities", the states need to step in to protect those animals.

Sorry, but the MI bill sounds like a step in the right direction.  And if you knew about the stuff that's gone on in the Mt Pleasant area, perhaps you would understand why this particular man was sickened to the point of athuring this bill.

I'm all for more regulation of breeding, but I don't like this.  First, I think the standards for good breeding need to be established by people who are experienced in breeding purbred dogs (ie, the parent clubs and kennel clubs - the parent clubs already have a Code of Ethics).  I've been to some Michigan county shelters and dealt with the ACOs and shelter workers....they are good people, but honestly they often don't know anything about purebred dogs or what constitutes responsible breeding (and I would not expect them to).  They are overworked and the shelters are full already, I don't see how placing the decision making power on the county shelters is really going to help at all.  They don't have enough time, money, and man-power to enforce current laws, let alone become qualified to make up and enforce new ones.  Many places already have a lot of expense and paperwork one must go through to obtain a kennel license.  Why not follow up on that?  I don't see the point in adding MORE fees and regulations when it's obvious the current ones are not being enforced.  And again, the good breeders will file and will pay the fees, the bad ones will continue to ignore them and go on breeding anyway...

Liesje

They don't have enough time, money, and man-power to enforce current laws, let alone become qualified to make up and enforce new ones.

What my local Council did years ago was put on extra ACOs to enforce current laws. The extra ACOs went door knocking on every door within the jurisdiction, and suddenly there was heaps of people wanting to license their dogs, and the dog licenses paid for ACOs plus paid for the local shelter, and by having sufficient staff the Council could provide good services to the community. Residents could have entire dogs if they so desired, but note that residents who did provide the Council with a veterinary letter saying their dogs had been spay neutered well they got substantial discounts on their dog licenses.

glenmar

And this is so awful because we might actually do away with puppy mills and the danged backyard breeders that sell their pups outside of Walmart???  As long as us humans consider animals to be "commodities", the states need to step in to protect those animals.

Sorry, but the MI bill sounds like a step in the right direction.  And if you knew about the stuff that's gone on in the Mt Pleasant area, perhaps you would understand why this particular man was sickened to the point of athuring this bill.

 You have to be kidding. Are you educated at all on the Animal Rights movement?

AgileGSD

 You have to be kidding. Are you educated at all on the Animal Rights movement?

Mr. Yates seems to believe every bit of legislation that tries to address the problems surrounding irresponsible breeding, selling practices and abusive care of pets, is nothing more than attempts by the Animal Rights movement to end pet ownership. To dismiss out of hand any possible solutions simply because the HSUS or even PETA support it, is IMO cutting off your nose despite your face. Each Bill has to be considered on its own merits. The "true" goal of the Bill has to be considered, not the "ultimate" goal of the extremists. Are we never going to pass any legislation that is endorsed by Animal Rights? What about all the other people and organizations that support such legislation? Do they have no credit? Are they all in bed with PETA? Are we really sooooo scared of the extremists that we will refuse to do anything to address the problem? At least the extremists are open with their agendas, agree with them or not. For some reason I get the feeling that Mr. Yates' organization may not be so open with theirs. - (just a feeling)

I tend to agree with Glenda that this is a step in the right direction, but if you can put forth an argument that doesn't include the 'slippery slope' theory or 'irresponsible people won't abide by the law anyways", then I would really like to hear what is wrong with this Bill. How will this Bill impact owners, breeders and most importantly pet welfare, good and bad?   
     

Quincy

Liesje

They don't have enough time, money, and man-power to enforce current laws, let alone become qualified to make up and enforce new ones.

What my local Council did years ago was put on extra ACOs to enforce current laws. The extra ACOs went door knocking on every door within the jurisdiction, and suddenly there was heaps of people wanting to license their dogs, and the dog licenses paid for ACOs plus paid for the local shelter, and by having sufficient staff the Council could provide good services to the community. Residents could have entire dogs if they so desired, but note that residents who did provide the Council with a veterinary letter saying their dogs had been spay neutered well they got substantial discounts on their dog licenses.

 

I do not have any problems with this, as I always license my dogs (and will accept the higher fee for an intact male) and pay attention to zoning limits.  However, this just proves my point.  The counties I am familiar with are understaffed and underfunded.  That's why I would agree, why not just enforce the rules we already have? 

Also, as another poster on the GSD board pointed out, most people I talk to in Michigan have never seen parking lot puppy sales, the type of thing this is targeted towards.  Perhaps it's a problem in Mt. Pleasant, than I would think some city/township or county laws could be written and enforced for this area, just like townships already determine limits on dogs (for example I can only have three dogs and three cats where I live now but if I move around the block I can have as many animals as I want).

Parking lot puppy sales is rampant in Mt Pleasant.  There are always people out at the end of the Walmart parking lot and on the street approaching the center.  Another guilty store is Jay's Sporting Goods in Clare - they have tons of them out in the parking lot.  Two of my co-workers bought pups there (ugh).  So many people breed beagles around here and then dump the "leftovers" at the Clare and Isabella county shelters it's unreal. 

A huge puppy mill was busted up not too long ago here is Isabella County - so many dogs, it was unbelievable.  I know the woman has since been sentenced, but prior to the hearing, she was still selling dogs out of her van from various parking lots - like she had them hidden somewhere when the original seizure took place.

I don't know if the Amish community in Clare does any breeding, but it seems that the more rural the area (as in the further north you go from about Lansing), the overbreeding would make your jaw drop.  It's not that we need more laws, we need more enforcement, which takes time, money, and employees.  And definitely more education about bybs and not buying from them.

denise m

Mr. Yates seems to believe every bit of legislation that tries to address the problems surrounding irresponsible breeding, selling practices and abusive care of pets, is nothing more than attempts by the Animal Rights movement to end pet ownership. To dismiss out of hand any possible solutions simply because the HSUS or even PETA support it, is IMO cutting off your nose despite your face.

  And to support restrictive, AR backed legislation because you want to stop "irresponsible breeders" at the expense of all breeders (really all pet owners) is IMO cutting off your nose despite your face.

denise m

  Each Bill has to be considered on its own merits. The "true" goal of the Bill has to be considered, not the "ultimate" goal of the extremists.

 You seem pretty certain that true goal of such legislation does not go hand in hand with the ultimate goal of AR, which is your first mistake.

denise m

Are we really sooooo scared of the extremists that we will refuse to do anything to address the problem? At least the extremists are open with their agendas, agree with them or not. For some reason I get the feeling that Mr. Yates' organization may not be so open with theirs. - (just a feeling)

  Mr. Yate's organization is pretty open about their agenda (to protect the rights of sportsmen, owners of hunting dogs and all pet owners). AR groups have never been all that open with their agenda, which is why so many blindly support them thinking they "do good things to help animals"

 You seem pretty certain that true goal of such legislation does not go hand in hand with the ultimate goal of AR, which is your first mistake.

denise m

I tend to agree with Glenda that this is a step in the right direction, but if you can put forth an argument that doesn't include the 'slippery slope' theory or 'irresponsible people won't abide by the law anyways", then I would really like to hear what is wrong with this Bill. How will this Bill impact owners, breeders and most importantly pet welfare, good and bad?   
     

 I think the article outlined pretty clearly what is wrong with the bill and the negative impact it could have. My own personal argument would be that perhaps people should not be so willing to give up their rights...or other's. I don't feel that personal ideas on ethics should be the law. The example of selling puppies in parking lots is an ethical issue, unless of course the dogs are neglected or abused which becomes a legal issue (and laws are already in place to address such things).

Staff shortages and lack of funding are certainly problems. 

I see puppies for sale in the Walmart parking lot and even near their doors every single weekend.  Some as young as five weeks old.  Yep, clearly a violation of the law but you know what happens when you report it?  Not a darned thing because they have no staff to take actions and no room to put puppies should they seize them.  And these are usually pitties or pit mixes.  That seems to be the biggest cash crop in my area.

The case in the Mt Pleasant area was horrific.  We saw footage of those poor dogs way up here in the hinterlands and it made me physically ill.  I talk to a multitude of pet owners in my job...that IS my job...and the bulk of them think it's perfectly ok to breed their untested, unproven bitches to the untested, unproven "boy next door".  THESE are the kinds of folks who are likely to be stopped by such a law.

Do people really want a purebred so badly that they are willing to take whatever they can get from whomever decides to make a few bucks??  I HAVE purebreds and many of them from irresponsible breeding, but not the ones I actually paid money for.  I've fostered more purebreds than I can count and some of the pups stayed here, and by golly it's easy to see which ones were responsibly bred and which ones were not.

You can call me stupid, lacking in knowledge or having my head buried in the sand all you want, but I see the overpopulation problem all too clearly working in the trenches with rescue.  And, if I did want to breed, I'd have no issue with paying the fee and meeting the standards imposed by the law.

glenmar

And, if I did want to breed, I'd have no issue with paying the fee and meeting the standards imposed by the law.

Glenda, I respect your position and your work with rescue.  My question is, how is this new law going to do anything?  There are already requirements for obtaining kennel licenses, paying those fees, paying county fees to register each dog (and these fees are typical twice the cost or more for intact dogs).  Good, reputable breeders jump through all the hoops and pay all the fees, bad breeders still ignore them and illegally sell underage pups in parking lots.  I am just reluctant to impose even MORE fees and red tape on GOOD breeders when what is currently in place makes little difference and the backyard breeding thrives. 

Good point.  Perhaps more of the money that comes in from these fees needs to be left with Animal Control and not divied up in whatever manner it is now.