My name is Scott Dietz, I own a state licensed kennel in Colorado. This
last week I was made aware of a bill that is going to be brought before the
Colorado House of Representatives.



This bill will:

1. Limit the number of unsterile dogs over 6 monthes of age, a person can own
to 25 .

2. Require every dog to be seen by a vet before they can be used for
breeding (this in itself could cost thousand of dollars in vet cost per dog
depending on what requirements they feel your vet would need to check and
test a dog for).


The bill is being sponsored by House Rep. Beth McCann (her number is
303-866-2959 and email is beth.mccann.house@state.co.us)



I am trying to get in touch with other dog breeders in the state so that we
all can come together to fight this legislation. I have attached the final
draft of the bill for you to read, and below are some points that I feel
merit our voices to be heard.



Myself and other breeders in the state are trying to compile a list of
names, phone numbers, and email addresses of supporters against the bill. We also need to know wether you are a Farm Bureau Member so they can too can lend their support in this fight.
We are not looking to just other dog breeders for support, we are looking for anyone and everyone because this will have a ripple effect on many people directly involved in breeding or not. We will need representatives from all aspects of our industry:
Vets, Breeders, Groomers, Mushers/Sled dog, Pet stores, boarding, Show people and Our Industry Partners like dog food companies,vet supply, dog registrations and any others we can get!

Please talk to everyone you know and send as many e-mails as you can as well as phone calls. Contact your Colorado House Represenative and State Senator and let your concerns be heard!
If you get someone that says they will be apart of a state group to help stop the HSUS from destroying Colorado's Pet industry, please give them my number and we will continue to grow and unite against this. Below are some valid talking points that were compiled for us from a lobbyist and check over by attorneys so please copy and paste them to use in your e-mails. Remember we need to be professional and make valid points.



Talking Points:



Regarding the limiting of the number of dogs owned.



Although we understand the intent we find. It is improperly believed that the quality of care for dogs is directly related to the number of dogs owned. Limiting the number of dogs will not improve the health, well being and care for dogs. This is evident by reports from the
organizations in the industry (HSUS and related rescues and shelters).
Those organizations can verify that the level of abuse and animal cruelty is not relative to number of animals (dogs) owned.



As well, the over whelming practical examples within the instruction and
courses from the National Animal Control Association (NACA) do not relate to kennels with great amount of breeding dogs. It is safe to say that over 95% of the animal cruelty discussed in these courses offered by NACA did NOT relate to the 'dog breeding kennel'. The animal cruelty cases discussed related mostly to criminal dog fighting, hoarding, animal beatings, and the individual family pet owner.



Please note that NACA is the national association that gathers statistics and trains the Animal Control Officers.



As well, business practices are likely to employ more assistance in the care of these dogs that will exceed that of the 'fewer dogs owners'.


This is NOT to suggest that the animal owners of fewer dogs be overly
regulated. This IS to suggest that you do not prejudice the owners of
multiple animals (namely over 25 dogs). As such is supported by the
fourteenth amendment.



Regarding No dog breeder shall breed any female dog unless a veterinarian certifies that the dog is in suitable health for breeding.



Although we understand the intent we find. The veterinary certification
needed actually goes back the need for the expert experience from the dog breeder. It is absolutely true that the breeder's expert knowledge of the hereditary nature of a dog and its concerns inherent to the breed are BEST known by the expert breeders of that particular breed. The possible 'tests and/or certifications', in fact, are requested by the breeder to the veterinarian. A veterinarian is trained in the medical needs, treatment and diagnosis of an animal. Although a veterinarian may be trained and qualified to administer such prescribed or requested 'certifications'.a veterinarian in not generally trained to know the medical concerns inherent to all breeds.

So, in essence, not that we suggest this, the law would theoretically state that the breeder or veterinarian needs to be certified. not the dog.



As well, the 'bill' uses the word "certification". The word in the industry
lends itself to costly and involved processes that although thorough. are not consistently the only accepted and SUCCESSFUL processes practiced.



This issue if passed will effectively serve to generate legislation that
will overburden a practice that is currently in place.

Argument: I.e. This will be legislation for those who not currently
practice an acceptable means of veterinary care. And, if a dog breeder
currently has an acceptable means of veterinary care---they do not have to worry about this.

Response: You are overburdening a system where the over whelming majority currently practice good veterinary habits---in the interest of prosecuting those that do not.



As well, breeders can easily offer documentation of their current
veterinarian-client-patient relationships. The 'lack of veterinary care'
is a false accusation. Legislating the demand for veterinary care is an
emotionally fueled issue. While we do not deny that animal abuse cases are commonly coupled with 'lack of veterinary care'. we DO confirm that 'lack of veterinary care' is not an industry standard. This issue if passed will effectively serve to make it financially devastating for the professional dog breeder and put them out of business.

Concluding, we see this as burdensome legislation that will restrict the
breeding practices currently in effect by well qualified dog breeders.



Section 3 35-80-110 Inspections-Investigations-access-subpoena

Requesting an administrative search is found to be unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment clearly states, " requires search and arrest warrants be Judicially sanctioned".



Section 4 35-80-112.5 Shall deny, refuse to renew, or revoke any license.

Although we understand the intent to make limitations. The nature of this proposed section is unconstitutional in two parts.

1.. The way this is written goes against the Eight Amendment. This is a
life sentence.
2.. This is supported by the "Second Chance Act" signed into law on April 9, 2008.


Thank you for your time,

Scott Dietz



If you have any questions you can email me at www.fourbardkennels@wmconnect.com , phone me
at 970-265-4020 or 970-324-6497 Cell.

I am about the furthest thing from an animal rights person you can find. Having said that, this poster is probably the epitome of what this bill is really trying to address - or more appropriately, shut down. I lost count at 12 different breeds with puppies available now. Can you spell PUPPY MILL????

I was thinking you knoow I would not complain about not being able to have 25 dogs at my house. They would no longer be pets when you have that many. I would hate to see what this place looks like if he really has that many breeds.

It sounds like this bill has good ideas. Do you really need more than 25 dogs? And yes, you should have your dogs to the vet before breeding. Have you ever heard of clearances? This bill doesnt seem so bad?

Seems to me like this bill would mean reputable breeders would be better off. Maybe if all the puppy mills masquerading as reputable breeders were shut down, the hobby would have more respect from the main stream. Its annoying to see so many puppy mill types trying to rile up the hobby breeders to work on behalf of their money making, animal abusing causes.
Annie

I would like to respectfully suggest that we hold onto our hats a little before we start defining puppy mills simply by the number of dogs they keep. There are some really concientious people in our breed who - because they have circumstances that allow it - can keep 15-20 dogs, or even more in some cases, and "do it right". If examined closely, you will find that some of these breeders have adopted some practices in their overall kennel management routine that the rest of us could learn from.

There are others, again because of their circumstances, who are pretty well limited to 4, or 6, or 8 and do a great job also. But I am here to tell you that there are TONS of people with under 10 dogs that are just as bad as the worst true puppy mills in the way that they keep their dogs and/or do "business". I'm just urging people to not feel too sanctimonious about being down in numbers. There's more to this than that. Sorry - JMHO....

And BTW - I am not defending the OP.

I agree with you totally Greg, But this person in general is a puppy mill. He has 31 different breeds.
He is located in NE colorado.
Any way... you can check out his website. I didn't see any labradors at least.
But he is known as 4 Bar D kennels.
www.4bardkennels.com
I don't know this guy. I have heard of his kennel.

But I will say I have seen many a labrador breeder with 15-20 labs.If they have the means to care and give each individual dog the attention a labrador craves. Good for you.

Its hard with at times me having 12.But I have finally reduced.

Diane, I did check out his site - sorry, I didn't make that clear. All kinds of red flags with this operation - starting with the thing in his OP about protecting "Colorado's pet industry". That operation has come up in discussions about puppy mills in Colorado consistently over the past several years. In answer to his pleas for our support, I would only offer this: "What Ever...."