The bill is on the governor's desk waiting to be signed. You need to either call and defend your right to have and breed dogs, OR organize and turn this
around to protect you.

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&frame=1&GA=83&hbill=HF2280

http://www.senate.iowa.gov/democrats/ways-means-week-of-feb-22-2010/



Anyone in the state of Iowa with more than 3 breeding males OR females is now a commercial breeder. This covers all show/hobby breeders

From the bill:

6. "Commercial breeder" means a person, engaged in the

3 9 business of breeding dogs or cats, who sells, exchanges,

3 10 or leases dogs or cats in return for consideration, or who

3 11 offers to do so, whether or not the animals are raised,

3 12 trained, groomed, or boarded by the person. A person who

3 13 owns or harbors three or fewer breeding males or females is

3 14 not a commercial breeder.



Fines are stiff and steep. And this is just touching the edge of the bill. IF you live in Iowa, you need to read the entire bill and learn what this means to
you.



Please feel free to cross post and forward.

I think that there are some really bad puppy mills in Iowa that need to be regulated more. One place has over 1350 dogs, many in the same cages and they pass USDA regulations. They supply the guys wife's chain of pet stores in Florida and Chicago plus other brokers needs. How do you get rid of puppy mills and not involve the hobby breeders?

Are you an HSUS or PETA person? How do you know how many dogs are in a certain facility? Why can't Iowa make the limit higher so that it doesn't include the hobby breeders. Why hurt everyone when it is the large scale puppy mills that should be regulated.

If this passes in Iowa, it's all the other states next.

Responsible breeders have to come up with some responsible solutions to the huge puppy mills without harming the small hobby breeders. And we have to communicate these solutions to our legislatures before it's too late.

Blow these pieces of legislation off, but they'll soon blow back to you wherever you live. It's coming folks, sooner than you may think.

I am a hobby breeder who shows her dogs in confirmation. I do have more than three breeders at this time. but not to the extent by far that puppy mills have. We do not sell, nor will ever sell for a profit to pet stores. What profit from our puppy sales goes right back into the care and training and shows, etc. More out of our own pockets most of tthe time!!!!! We keep legitimate records and pups and dogs have clearances through OFA and CERF, with Optigen, EIC and all the other testing to breed sound dogs. Can the puppy mills say that? So this needs to be addressed before it goes to the govenor's office for his signature. We must band together as ethical breeders.

Just google Steve Kruse

I am ignorant in this area, please help me understand. Is the bill going to stop you from keeping more than 3 breeding dogs at one time or fine you and make you into a criminal for doing so? Or is it just going to regulate those that keep more than 3 breeding dogs at one time? If it is the latter then I do not understand the fuss. Why would you oppose anything that would help ensure the comfort and proper care of the dogs you love? Don't you think the odds of dogs being treated like livestock (or worse) escalates when one is keeping more than 3 breeding dogs?

I think the key word here is "Regulate", who regulates us? I think your comment that the odds of people who have more then 3 breeding dogs escalates for them to be treated like livestock-your showing your ignorance on that comment and I take offense to that comment I know lots of people with more then three breeding dogs that treat them wonderful and they have wonderful lives.
There are laws in States and if they would inforce them then we would not need new laws. I'm sorry, we don't need more laws and people who know nothing about breeding and showing and all the the venues we can have with our dogs, telling me or anyone else what to do!!! Especially, since these new laws that you see no problem with, are inforced and written by PETA lovers and HSUS lovers!!!

Ok I guess I had that angry response coming but I honestly did not mean to offend. I have more than 3 breeding dogs myself and they all live in my home as house dogs. I know that one can keep multiple dogs and give them a good and healthy life. I am just saying that when there are higher numbers than that it becomes more likely that the dogs will not be given the necessary comforts of life. Surely you will not argue that there are more people who breed improperly and do not keep their dogs in an ideal setting than there are responsible breeders like ourselves. I suppose my point here was that if we are doing it all correctly then why do we care so much if there is more regulation? Why are we not willing to be a little inconvenienced by more laws if it could mean that just one puppy mill or heartless breeder had to change their ways?

Something has to be done to stop these puppy mills. Iowa is the 3rd largest state for puppy mills. Is all the new law requiring a permit? What is bad for show breeders in the new law?

certain issues that come up whenever restrictive legislation is forced upon the public.

1) People throw out outrageous figures or statements like there are 4 million dogs in shelters in the U.S., or this State is the 3rd largest for puppy mills. Do everyone a really big favor. If you want to quote a statistic to bolster your argument about why a law should be enacted, then CITE YOUR SOURCE for these numbers. That way other people can check and verify what you have said is actually true.

2) When you say a law is necessary, show that the current laws in your jurisdiction are not working. Most jurisdictions have animal cruelty laws on the books. They just are not enforced. Either because in this tight ecomony money is not put by local government toward this end, because they believe other public services (education, public works, lowering taxes) are more important, or in fact, animal cruelty was just never thought of as a high priority in the 1st place.

3) Also don't assume that just because you may have someone in mind that the law should apply to, that those individuals are going to be the only ones affected. When a law is enacted, it is for everyone the legislation supposedly covers. If a law is drafted poorly to cover more people than it should, guess what? It will harm those people it should never have been meant to cover in the first place.

4) Never assume a law is benign on its face. It is how the law is ENFORCED, that will make it good or bad for the ethical breeder. If there is a provision in the law that could hurt a breeder if it is improperly enforced, than the law is a BAD law. Good laws don't contain provisions that are so badly drafted that they can be abused.

I will now step down from my soap box and let others be heard from.

No problem,

the source is Sen. Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines

he was quoted in an interview

http://www.qctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/article_ef4104f6-2037-11df-9566-001cc4c002e0.html

What is bad in the proposed law thats bad for reponsible breeders?

Good point and you can stay on your soap box Thank you for the eye opener

lets deal with the actual facts given in the news article.

1) Senator McCoy does say that Iowa ranks 3rd nationally in the amount of animals being raised in USDA licensed facilities. He does not say who did the ranking, or where the actual study can be found and reviewed for accuracy. Nor does he indicate that Iowa's facilities are more poorly kept than any other state's.

2) It is clear that while this is a national (read Federal Government) licensing issue, it appears this legislation will bring down additional STATE TAXES on the heads of legitimate ethical breeders in the State of Iowa. The puppy mills will cut corners in other areas of their dogs'care to pay for this tax. Do you think ethical breeders will cut corners, or do you think they might just stop breeding because of the expense?

3) The article also said that nine other senators thought this legislation was pushed through by A.R. activists.

4) The article closes by stating "animal welfare groups" said federally licensed facilities were not being held accountable when poor living conditions for dogs had been discovered. As I said in my prior post, if the current laws are not enforced, it does not mean new laws are needed. It means the laws on the books have to be enforced. Even the so called "animal welfare groups" admitted the problem was lack of enforcement. So here some AR groups have pushed Iowa's Legislature into taxing local ethical breeders, when the problem is one which even the AR groups admit was one of enforcement of Federal regulations.

So who is the biggest loser here. The puppy mills who will have to cut their profits some, or the ethical breeders who already probably spend more on their hobby then they will ever recoup, and are now being taxed into the bargain?

Why do we need to have commercial dog breeders? Is there really a difference if you call them that and have them USDA approved, and what a puppy Mill is? So why not just do away with a commercial breeder and the laws they have to protect them. Even with that I see no reason to say a huge number like you can not have more than 50 dogs or even 100. My lord, anyone with 800 dogs should go to jail just for that. However its leagal??????

it should never be a question about numbers; it is a question of good care and rearing practices. When an industry (whatever industry) which makes a profit, involving any kind of livestock which the public consumes ( in our case as pets ), the government steps in to oversee that the product rendered is of a quality which is in the best interest of the consumer.

Given your example, could a puppy farm theoretically raise puppies, giving them clean facilities, high quality kibble and necessary socialization, for any number of dogs? The answer is yes, although theory and reality are not always the same thing. This thread was not about what volume of puppies could be successfully raised however. That is a different issue.

The issue in this thread is that an AR group managed to push the Iowa legislature into enacting an over reaching highly restrictive law which will affect ethical dog breeders, as well as high volume puppy mills. It will also place a tax burden on the ethical dog breeders as well. The point was that there were Federal regulations already in place, which if they are properly enforced, take care of the problems allegedly caused by the puppy mills. No new Iowa state law was necessary.

While a very sad situation, it points out the need for all responsible breeders, breed clubs, kennel clubs, and all those who value our right to have dogs, to keep their political antenna constantly attuned to anything they hear about new laws or regulations which might restrict their right to own their dogs or do with them as they wish. If they do hear about anything, they have to be ready to contact their local legislator and explain why they oppose the proposed law, before it begins to even get any traction.

The AR people have money and are zealots in their aim to eliminate pet ownership. They will never give up, and so we must always remain vigilant against their efforts to beat them back.

"Why are we not willing to be a little inconvenienced by more laws if it could mean that just one puppy mill or heartless breeder had to change their ways?"

This one line jumped out at me as it mirrors what we are facing on so many fronts right now, not just about our dogs. Little by little, our freedoms are being eroded. If we continue to rationalize that it's "all right in this case", we'll soon find ourselves without any freedoms left.

As the previous poster suggested, "the price of freedom is vigilance"...in so very many ways.

Have a good afternoon.

The only way to eradicate PMs is to dry up their market. No buyers=no puppy mills. People still have the right to make a stupid decision and buy a puppy from a puppy mill. Let's start by enforcing the laws already on the books before creating new ones, and do more educating and PR.