I wonder who'll eventually be the mandatory reporter(s)? The government always gets the people to narc on the people. My CPA spouse recently found out at a conference that CPA's are the mandatory reporters for the new health care law. Your CPA now has to verify that you have health coverage before he/she signs personal or corporate returns. His/her CPA license is on the line.
Teachers, all medical personnel, etc. are mandatory reporters for even remotely possible child abuse, hence 30% of todays reports are invalid but the family's name goes on a central registry. As one Social worker said, "It's all about protecting your professional license, you rather inaccurately report an innocent family of a child with a broken arm with an unusual story like falling off the bed, than lose your license."
I can see a Veterinarian's license being on the line if they don't report owners who ask for a shipping certificate, or airlines being forced to report who is shipping, etc. The government will find someone who will be forced to inform, it eases their workload.
We will all have to go "underground" eventually. I suppose we will be ambushed by agriculture agents at shows and our dogs ripped from our hands and we will be thrown in jail. WIH is this United States becoming??? Tryanny!
There is no laughing here. I meant this as a serious statement. It IS what we will have to do. Dog showing may come to an end some day too. We are all becoming little minnions of the state.
This is all happening because 99% of us have never taken the time to object to these proposals through our government officials. We never think it will happen to "us." And now that this has passed, I bet that we still will not pay any attention nor take the time to write about this law or any future laws.
Did the LRC write an objection? Did your regional club write an objection? All of our clubs need legal advocates to guide us in these matters. A legal advocate can merely be someone who is genuinely interested in these kinds of goings on in Washington or if lucky enough a real lawyer who will advice and suggest.
I don't ship my puppies but I should have the right to.
Another Breeder wrote:"
I don't ship my puppies but I should have the right to."
That is a good point. If I were to own five intact adult bitches and then went to ship a pet puppy to my sibling for a pet, I would need the license, wouldn't I? I don't even know if a gift of a pup is allowable if it is shipped. That is just one of the ways this is wrong.
I wonder is this rule is retroactive. I shipped 3 puppies about 5 years ago but I haven't ship any dogs after that. Anyone care to clarify this?
Legislation like this should not be taken lightly. That said, some of you are just nuts.
Rights and responsibilities? How does that work? Oh yes. They take away our rights and we become responsible for complying with the new restrictions.
My idea of responsibility is for all of us to wake up and start fighting the regulations with which the very proactive animal rights people are burdening us.
Check this to-the-point and informative blog on "Time 4 Dogs".
http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/
I get confused when I read about this new law.
1-Is the number of breeding females "4 or more," or "more than 4?"
2-Is the requirement to have a license because you meet the number of breeding females AND sell a puppy sight unseen or because you ship a puppy sight unseen regardless of the number of breeding females you own?
3-Is it only puppies sold sight unseen that matter? What about older dogs?
I think I understand that the definition of breeding female has not been stated. The fact that I would not breed a female until they are 2 years old and have all clearances doesn't matter.
I think I understand that whether you own or co-own the females hasn't been differentiated, that it's whether or not they are on your property that matters -- whether you own them, co-own them or don't even own them at all. Is this correct?
Would this include puppy families who fly to come *personally* pick up their puppy? I can't really choose what method of transportation *they* choose to take their puppy home. Car, train or flying back with pup as carry on.
Or what if the puppy was not sold? Like a pup given to another breeder?
Or What if it was a puppy I bred, but have to ship the puppy to *my* new home?
Just questions that I couldn't seem to find answers for.
These are not the everyday cases they are after. As they've said it many times, if you have an sporadic case that you might have to flight a pet that is not being sold, you should call and ask them. They would probably tell you that it'll be ok if it is only one time. I can't be sure this is true or if it will be honored, so please it is your responsibility to call them and ask.
A puppy buyer who comes and personally meets you does not cause this rule to engage. So puppy buyers who take their pup home on cargo or carry on would not put you, if you have more than four intact bitches, into needing a license.
As for the others, I, too, cannot see answers to your questions, including the gift pup to a relative. I sure as heck am not going to call up and ask, although I do not have five intact girls nor have I flown a pup sight unseen. I like low profile, and my dogs on a couch and rug if I want them there. If I had five girls intact, maybe I'd call--but that would only be the answer from ONE inspector. If I were going to put myself out there, I'd want the ruling in writing. That opens up other cans of worms, I am sure.
Too bad I wasn't a girly girl who took up knitting and dressmaking as a hobby. It would be a lot more clear cut. Meanwhile, I will preserve my little line.