To the face of law makers and the AR, we are all that derogatory breeder hate slur you use.
No one wants to see dogs raised in poor conditions, but trying to save your ass by saying you're better than other types of breeders ain't going to cut it anymore. Trying to say why you should be breeding and no one else should be allowed doesn't fly anymore. What gives you special rights? What defines responsible? reputable? We either have to accept that others have the same rights to breed dogs as we do or there will be no breeding at all. As we've seen by these new rules, the small breeders are first on the chopping block. We're too scattered, too busy infighting ourselves, and too judgmental of others to be organized to carry out the fight.
"My rights" vs. "your rights" is not a "Liberal" vs. "Conservative" argument at all. Both Liberals and Conservatives are both quick to disrespect the "rights" of the other guy. Any objective person can see that hypocrisy play-out in local and national politics on a daily basis.
Furthermore, I am not sure whether this is a question of "rights" at all.
1) It is my "right" to put an 8 week old puppy in a crate and ship it in a plane across the country to someone I have never met.
2) It is a good idea for people to travel with their pups on long journeys. It is a good idea to have met the people you are selling a pup too.
Playing the "rights" card, and using junior high school labeling tactics to discredit those that disagree with you, both take away from an intelligent debate about the real issue.
That all said, and in the interest in intelligent debate, I do think there are other ways to distinguish between a reputable hobby breeder and a puppy mill. If you want to make an effective argument, it is better to focus on the specific issue, and less on name calling and superficial generalizations and insults.
Dear Huh?
You must be a liberal. Enough said.
Dear Conservative,
I think this is a very important issue. I don't think I like the law as written. Although some of the reasoning for it is legitimate and well intentioned, I do not trust many of those that supported it at all.
To be honest, I am not sure what it means to be liberal or conservative anymore because the use of those terms seems to have changed so much and the words are often used so inconsistently. I used to describe myself as being conservative although most others would have described me as being more moderate. I would definitely not call myself a Conservative anymore because I do not want to be associated with the vocal minority who tend to use that term so loudly and simplistically.
What I do know is that many, if not most, people who use those labels now-a-days are just throwing out insults. It don't see how that is constructive action??? Whatever you want to call me, did you notice we are on the same side on this issue???
Never enough said.... Constructive debate is a good thing...
The sad thing is the so-called puppy mills are already under USDA regulations. This was a direct slap to the hobby breeder. Get rid of the hobby breeder and they can concentrate on the "bigger, commercial breeders" since everyone is against puppy mills, right?
This is a backdoor way to get rid of breeding, whether you are reputable or not.
My understanding is that they are using 1) # of breeding females, and 2) whether or not someone ships pups without the new owners ever being on the premises of the seller, as the 2 criteria to distinguish hobby breeders from commercial breeders.
1) I think the law says 5 females. Does the law consider age of the females? Does the law consider whether the female is spayed or not?
2) Whatever that # is, and however they define it... Does the law say # of breeding females AND shipping pups, or does it say # of breeding females OR shipping ups, or is it an AND/OR?
2) Is there other criteria that would be more effective to be used to distinguish hobby from commercial breeders?
1) Most of us lose money at this, clearly have no intent of making a profit, and therefore definitely are not commercial breeders. Most small, hobby breeders treat their animals very well....as pets usually.
2) There are big puppy mills who make a significant amount of money, treat the dogs in a sometimes horrible way, and clearly need increased oversight/regulation.
3) There are lots of breeders in the middle who breed for profit as well as for a hobby. The dogs are generally well cared for and the pups go to good homes. "Generally" is the key word in that sentence.
Sometimes I think we fight so hard to uphold the "rights" of group #3, that no progress is made against the puppy mills. Is it that big of an issue if group #3 has to deal with increased regulation in order to be able to fight against puppy mills? We do need to consider that even though most breeders in this category treat their dogs well, we have all seen many situations where the dogs are clearly not in conditions that most of us would consider acceptable (although would still likely be considered "legal" even with increased regulation).
People who do something for profit, should expect increased regulation as opposed to someone who does it for a hobby. The question is... What is a reasonable amount of regulation?
I have asked this specific question before. What is an objective criteria that would properly distinguish a hobby breeder from a commercial breeder? This criteria has to be easily observable and relatively non-intrusive so as not to disrespect the rights of the true hobby breeder when determining who needs a license or not, as well as to not unrealistically burden regulators and make it too easy to cheat.
Banging my head against the wall
You just don't get it do you?
Why is it a sin to make money doing something you love? Making general blanket statements about a person who makes money is wrong. You are just assuming. You have no first hand knowledge.
Why is it a sin to keep a large number of dogs? This is how many of the most successful kennels in the world became successful. Is it jealousy on the part of the small breeders that they have not achieved the level of success that larger breeders have since breeding one or two litters a year rarely gets you multiple champions? I admire the small kennels that can do this, but it usually takes more litters than that per year to increase your odds of getting those really typey dogs. And of course the more litters per year you raise, the more money you will make.
It isn't a sin to make money or breed larger numbers. We've all been brainwashed by the animal rights groups and each that the only way to do it right is small and not make money. This is what we tell ourselves and others when this type of legislation comes up.
I know commercial breeders who show, do clearances, raise many litters and sell at retail level. They are inspected at the state and local levels. The Feds don't need to butt into their business.
I know commercial breeders who sell wholesale that are doing clearances and keep spotless kennels and hire people to care for their dogs that are USDA.
Neither kennel is wrong except in the eyes of the elite who feel that breeders need only breed their way or no way.
Substandard breeders will continue to exist no matter how strict the legislation gets. Many people who keep their animals in bad conditions are not even breeders at all. But one of the tactics of the Animal Rights Groups is to pass as many laws and make as many rules as possible so that it is highly restrictive and very expensive to be a breeder. It i just ashamed that some small breeders have their head in the sand and fail to see the bigger picture.
The breeder hate term used is certainly working it's emotive factors. All I hear you saying is stop those bad (term here). Can't you get it through your thick skull that we are all that type of breeder to the Animal Rights? They have no problem using it against all of us. Why do you fail to understand this?
And I leave you with this quote: "How did we reach a point in America where we have allowed leftists to brainwash Americans into thinking that liberty, capitalism, personal property, profit, and personal responsibility are bad?"
You are making gross exaggerations.
I am quite confident most of us smaller breeders do not automatically make negative judgments about bigger breeders. I personally make those judgments on an individual basis and do not make them unless I have first hand knowledge. In fact, it is often the bigger breeder's stud dogs who we rely on to improve our modest lines.
All I am saying is that those who make a profit should expect more reasonable regulation then those who don't make a profit. Clear and direct.....
That said, I personally don't want my tax money wasted on regulating legitimate breeders who I called group #3 above. It isn't a big enough problem for the buck. However, I simply don't feel compelled to protect them from regulation aimed at puppy mills.
So again, I am not in support of regulating legitimate breeders. But if you are making a profit at this game, you are wrong to argue that we can and should not regulate puppy mills because some of you might inadvertently get caught up in the bureaucracy.
BTW, if the states were doing a good job, the Feds would not be getting involved. Democratic government is slow and plodding. They have a hard enough time being reactionary to be pro-active.
Think for a minute.
USDA/APHIS say that the reasons that they are making this rule are:
1.- Breeders that sell sight unseen though internet only do not get supervision from anybody. Residential/commercial breeders that receive the general public at their premises get "policed" by the general public, hence if there is something wrong somebody would make a complaint with the appropriate authority.
2.- USDA receive too many complaints about sick puppies that are shipped.
All this is a big load of BS and not the real reasons and this is why :
1.- The rule enforces inspections on kennels that do not receive general public at their premises. Then why the rule allows these breeders to meet at a different place than the actual kennel. Result: these sight unseen kennels can still sell their puppies from a different place than where the parents and puppies are kept and raised as soon as they don't ship...
2.- The buyer needs to be present to take possession of the puppy directly from the buyer to make sure that the puppy isn't sick. All animals must have a health certificate from a certified veterinarian to be shipped. Are they saying that a buyer can tell better than a veterinarian if a puppy is sick or not???
No, this doesn't make sense to me I'm not pro-conspiracy theories, but USDA, APHIS, AR, PETA, etc. are doing whatever they want and we are doing nothing to stop it.
Here's what I found on AKC. It says they want breeders to "self identify". Female # is UNDER 5.
http://www.akc.org/governmentrelations/usda_aphis_faqs.cfm#enforcement