A word from our sponsors...
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Came across this; seems particularly well thought out to me-- bans sale of dogs and cats in stores.Specifically says sales from breeders would be unaffected. They want people to go see the conditions where the pets are raised when they buy.I could totally get behind this one nation wide.QUOTE An official in Wentzville is proposing a ban on the retail sale of cats and dogs, due to Missouri's problem with puppy mills.Nick Guccione, an alderman in Wentzville, Ward 3, is pushing forward an ordinance he plans will close distribution channels for the mills, according to a report from the Associated Press.Guccione said Monday that dogs in some of these breeding facilities are drinking out of the same water and food, and having to live in their own feces. In some cases, inbred dogs are not unheard of."I am just fed up with the puppy mills," Guccione said. "They (the puppies) have no one to stand up for them. Hopefully, with this proposal, other cities will get on board."The proposal will ban stores from delivering, auctioning, selling, bartering or giving away dogs and cats, the report said.Missouri is believed to lead the nation in the number of puppy mills, according to the AP report."I am not going to say that one state is necessarily the worst," said Dave Sacks, a U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesperson. "We take it on a case-by-case basis. We have made an effort in the last six months to be stricter on repetitive problem breeders."Missouri is among the states leading in poor breeding conditions, but it is not alone, Sacks said. He listed Pennsylvania and Iowa on the top of the list as well.Sacks said he did not have any statistics that he could contribute.People and businesses that breed animals on site would be unaffected by the Wentzville proposal, according to the report. Individuals purchasing animals would be able to see the conditions in which animals bred are treated.There will be exceptions made for nonprofit organizations such as the Humane Society, shelters and animal rescue societies.Guccione said hopefully more actions will be taken with Proposition B, the Missouri Dog Breeding Regulation Initiative, which should be on the ballot in November.Guccione said other cities have legislation passed on pet retail, such as Albuquerque, N.M., and that he thought the proposal could hold up in court.Sacks said the USDA inspects all commercial breeders, and not just those referred to as "puppy mills," a common term applied to breeding facilities focused on profit and not animal welfare that are usually not up to USDA standards."We are the federal regulators, and we hold unannounced routine inspections," Sacks said. "We have the authority to inspect the sanitation and see that dogs receive proper food, water and veterinary care."Sacks said on the national level, the problem is not as bad as some might think."For the most part, the majority of commercial breeders follow the regulations," he said. "It's a small percentage that are problematic, but each bad breeder is still one too many."
I distrust it . Like I distrust most motivations from the almighty govt. these days. To be honest it sound like another nicely worded piece of legislation to slowly advance a total ban on pet ownership. Or lets put it this way, in the guy's own words, at the very end of the snippet Neander posted, even "...one is too many". That says to me that even if there were no mill breeders anyone could find we would have to do this because there MIGHT be one somewhere sometime. That's paranoid thinking. Its punishing that vast majority of breeders and sellers who are law abiding for an admittedly tiny portion of breeders who are bad. Its abject laziness in truth. The people passing these laws see it as easier to ban an entire industry, nay, an entire, social norm, pet ownership, than it is to actually enforce the laws already on the books. Ya know at this point I could go on a long tirade. But I'll stop here for now. Thanks for the article Neander, my anger is no reflection on your posting or your opinion.
QUOTE (neandernitz @ Sep 2 2010, 03:18 AM) Came across this; seems particularly well thought out to me-- bans sale of dogs and cats in stores.Specifically says sales from breeders would be unaffected. They want people to go see the conditions where the pets are raised when they buy.I could totally get behind this one nation wide.QUOTE An official in Wentzville is proposing a ban on the retail sale of cats and dogs, due to Missouri's problem with puppy mills.Nick Guccione, an alderman in Wentzville, Ward 3, is pushing forward an ordinance he plans will close distribution channels for the mills, according to a report from the Associated Press.Guccione said Monday that dogs in some of these breeding facilities are drinking out of the same water and food, and having to live in their own feces. In some cases, inbred dogs are not unheard of."I am just fed up with the puppy mills," Guccione said. "They (the puppies) have no one to stand up for them. Hopefully, with this proposal, other cities will get on board."The proposal will ban stores from delivering, auctioning, selling, bartering or giving away dogs and cats, the report said.Missouri is believed to lead the nation in the number of puppy mills, according to the AP report."I am not going to say that one state is necessarily the worst," said Dave Sacks, a U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesperson. "We take it on a case-by-case basis. We have made an effort in the last six months to be stricter on repetitive problem breeders."Missouri is among the states leading in poor breeding conditions, but it is not alone, Sacks said. He listed Pennsylvania and Iowa on the top of the list as well.Sacks said he did not have any statistics that he could contribute.People and businesses that breed animals on site would be unaffected by the Wentzville proposal, according to the report. Individuals purchasing animals would be able to see the conditions in which animals bred are treated.There will be exceptions made for nonprofit organizations such as the Humane Society, shelters and animal rescue societies.Guccione said hopefully more actions will be taken with Proposition B, the Missouri Dog Breeding Regulation Initiative, which should be on the ballot in November.Guccione said other cities have legislation passed on pet retail, such as Albuquerque, N.M., and that he thought the proposal could hold up in court.Sacks said the USDA inspects all commercial breeders, and not just those referred to as "puppy mills," a common term applied to breeding facilities focused on profit and not animal welfare that are usually not up to USDA standards."We are the federal regulators, and we hold unannounced routine inspections," Sacks said. "We have the authority to inspect the sanitation and see that dogs receive proper food, water and veterinary care."Sacks said on the national level, the problem is not as bad as some might think."For the most part, the majority of commercial breeders follow the regulations," he said. "It's a small percentage that are problematic, but each bad breeder is still one too many." i would support it as well, there are too ,any breeders here & everywhere, that are in it only for the money, the animals dont get the care they need, im all for licensing & inspections of all breeding facilities as well as shutting down the depositories for the puppy mills.my 2 cents
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
I could see some good from a law like that. Because if people had to go someplace besides a mall to get a pet, it might cut back on the number of animals that eventually get abandoned or put up for adoption because the people did not think about how much care an animal needs.Almost any time a movie comes out with an animal as the star, there is usually a increase in the number of people that buy an animal. Shortly followed by a increase in the number of animals put up for adoption. Dalmatians come to mind.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Ya know, as a person who works in animal hospitals, I can this. Its not the people who buy from a pet shop. Pet shops charge heavily, often grossly overcharging, for the pets they offer. The people who have that kind of money to shell out for a puppy very often are willing to shell out money to take care of said dog/cat/ferret etc. Most of the problems people see with cheap ass owners who don't want to invest in their pets comes NOT from people buying from pet shops as a rule. But rather the problem stems from people who get cheap pets from backyard breeders through things like PennySaver. No amount of legislation will stop that class of people or encourage that class of people to develop anything like a sense of responsibility. You can't legislate good will and good intentions. But you can keep pets out of the hands of people who are decent and have good intentions when it comes to pet ownership.
most new laws seem to take away liberties and freedoms but this one actually makes a bit of sense. honestly I'd rather buy an animal from the actual owner. that way that person can answer questions that pet stores can't. besides who wants to see animals locked up in cages for display?
I would stupor it, I believe pets should be treated like human adoptions with all the regulations to make it safe for the animal and make sure the person giving the animals is not a "horrible monsters" looking for profit by neglecting them.
I too have in the pas and will continue to support legislative activist actions that ban dogs and cats in storefront pet shops i.e. the mall or "puppies. Puppies" etc that do in fact get their ill bred mixed breed pups from commercial puppy mills and then charge well over outrageous prices for some "DESIGNER" dog. Backyard breeders are bad enough but in general they really constitute a small percentage of the animal population as they usually only have one or two dogs vs. hundreds of them. Most municipalities do have breeder and kennel inspections and laws but they are usuallu too understaffed to be really effective. When we used to have our kennel we were licsened by the county and were subject to random inspection at any time - it was not uncommon to have an inspector (from the police department) knock on the door at 8:00 AM and demand to inspect the premisis and they expected admittance. Over the years however theinspections dimminished as we always passed then to the point we once had an inspector state that the dirtiest he ever found our place was a lot cleaner than most he inspected. Eventually, they pretty much quit comming around.
Legislators are always under pressure to "do something about the animals being dumped" and I prefer this to some of the other options that I've heard proposed.In fairness, I'll also say that I've long been opposed to companion animals being sold by anyone other than the original breeder. I see it as enabling an irresponsible "mill" mentality, even if they only have one litter every few years.To those that disagree with me, consider the following points:If you sell to a pet shop, and let them place the puppies (or kittens etc) for you, how do you know the pups you were responsible for bringing into the world are in good homes? FAIL ON RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUP.If there is no contact between the breeder and the final owner, how do you get feedback on health issues that aren't obvious in the first 8 weeks (dysplasia, cancer, immune issues etc). Without that flow of info, how can you make valid decisions whether to continue breeding a particular line? FAIL ON RESPONSIBILITY TO THE BREED/DOGS IN GENERAL. If this is extended to temperment, you could be producing dangerously agressive dogs/fear biting dogs! FAIL ON RESPONSIBILITY TO SOCIETY.
This seems to be well thought out and not just a knee jerk reaction. I think I could get behind this one.LTD
It sounds okay. However, the devil is in the details. It is all in how a mill is defined. If, for instance, a legal breeder must be licensed by the state, then you would have to pay a fee to get a certificate that can be hung on the wall. If the state is having budget issues then the fee may be made annual or it could increase.Now this lets you operate your legal breeding center. Now you need some breeding stock. This would require another annual fee to keep a pet that is intact. This fee would be in addition to the normal license.Don't forget that you would need to take a state approved course so the state knows that you are competent in the care of your chosen animal. This would take a one time fee of $100.00 and 40 hours of instruction time.If the law does not want you to own intact pets then they will make it so financially burdensome that only the wealthy will be able to afford it.
QUOTE (Foxyjosh @ Sep 3 2010, 10:11 PM) ...If the law does not want you to own intact pets then they will make it so financially burdensome that only the wealthy will be able to afford it. I am glad to see at least some other perceive the worries of the future I have.
QUOTE (Foxyjosh @ Sep 4 2010, 06:41 AM) It sounds okay. However, the devil is in the details. It is all in how a mill is defined. If, for instance, a legal breeder must be licensed by the state, then you would have to pay a fee to get a certificate that can be hung on the wall. If the state is having budget issues then the fee may be made annual or it could increase.Now this lets you operate your legal breeding center. Now you need some breeding stock. This would require another annual fee to keep a pet that is intact. This fee would be in addition to the normal license.Don't forget that you would need to take a state approved course so the state knows that you are competent in the care of your chosen animal. This would take a one time fee of $100.00 and 40 hours of instruction time.If the law does not want you to own intact pets then they will make it so financially burdensome that only the wealthy will be able to afford it. This doesn't attempt to define a mill - it seeks to ban the sale of puppies in pet shops where people can't see the conditions under which the breeding animals are kept.If the puppy mills are happy to have their customers come and walk around their cages (possibly falling over from the smell ) they're welcome to stay in business. THAT's why I think they'll fight this one just as hard as the other proposals - they know the conditions they impose on their dogs are not up to current community expectations for companion animals.
This is a sort of catch 22 situation, stop the puppy mills but still let people breed animals but then not be able to sell them through pet shops. (Almost like trying to get an intact pet from a pet shelter.)
QUOTE (furisforfun @ Sep 4 2010, 01:25 AM)This doesn't attempt to define a mill - it seeks to ban the sale of puppies in pet shops where people can't see the conditions under which the breeding animals are kept.Of course not. As a gun owner, I am very well aware of the tricks politicians use to keep firearms and other things out of the hands of the common person.First, a vague law is passed because a majority vote is needed and lawmakers try their best to please as many people as possible. Once the law is passed, then it can be modified and adjusted without a vote.The trick is to not let the politicians get their foot in the door.
QUOTE (Foxyjosh @ Sep 5 2010, 01:25 AM) Of course not. As a gun owner, I am very well aware of the tricks politicians use to keep firearms and other things out of the hands of the common person.First, a vague law is passed because a majority vote is needed and lawmakers try their best to please as many people as possible. Once the law is passed, then it can be modified and adjusted without a vote.The trick is to not let the politicians get their foot in the door. By that reasoning, you'd have to oppose every piece of legislation on every topic - not exactly a constructive use of your time. I think we're drifting a bit close to a political discussion here so I'll drop out now rather than push the BF rules. Feel free to drop me a PM if you'd like to chat about it further.Cheers
QUOTE (Foxyjosh @ Sep 3 2010, 10:11 PM) It sounds okay. However, the devil is in the details. It is all in how a mill is defined. If, for instance, a legal breeder must be licensed by the state, then you would have to pay a fee to get a certificate that can be hung on the wall. If the state is having budget issues then the fee may be made annual or it could increase.Now this lets you operate your legal breeding center. Now you need some breeding stock. This would require another annual fee to keep a pet that is intact. This fee would be in addition to the normal license.Don't forget that you would need to take a state approved course so the state knows that you are competent in the care of your chosen animal. This would take a one time fee of $100.00 and 40 hours of instruction time.If the law does not want you to own intact pets then they will make it so financially burdensome that only the wealthy will be able to afford it. What goes into a license is largely dependent on the size of the operation and the state/ county. When we had a breeding kennel licensed by our county we had to file an application listing the name and age of all dogs (it was about 20 at the time) and provide proof of rabies for every dog. The fee for an annual license was about equal to that for 4 unaltered dogs ($!00.00 per year) but was for unlimited numbers of dogs provided we were able to provide housing/ kennel enclosure of sufficient size to allow the dogs adequate room to move around comfortably - an adequate place for exercise, that had to be kept cleaned. Proper food had to be provided but not required to be out at all times (we fed once per day) and of course clean water for every dog. We were also required to submit to unannounced inspection. Now the sticky laws come into play if you are trying to become a "licensed" COMMERCIAL breeder" as then you are subject to interstate animal trafficking laws and the federal government gets involved. Many puppy farms try to get around this law by breaking their operation up into several locations and make them look like hobby breeders. When the law catches a bad one they simply close up shop - ship the dogs out to another location and wait for the law to catch them again
Last modified on February 12th, 2012 | Zoodestiny.com | © 2003-2005 - All Rights Reserved