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.

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?

I am the one making gross exaggerations? How so? By advocating the end of the use of the breeder hate term? By saying do not judge other breeders unless you have first hand knowledge? By making stereotypical blanket statements about other breeders? By saying that commercial breeders, who are already heavily regulated, are not automatically that hate term you use? That other breeders don't use that term on each other? These are gross exaggerations how?

And these are not: "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." "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."

Not only are these statements by you highly judgment and calls for extreme speculation on how these breeders operate, they are also doing nothing but reinforcing stereotypes and the continued use of a term that has been hijacked by the animal rights groups for use to pass laws. It is no secret that it is very emotive and when people hear the term, it conjures up those horrible images we've all seen on the tv commercials to drive in funding, but it is what gets voters and rule makers to feel sorry for these dogs and pass more and more restrictive legislation/rules to end the cruelty (also be aware that most animal rightist believe breeding dogs is a form of cruelty). I see this day in and day out on the message boards I frequent.

It is absolutely WRONG in America to enact law that won't touch the substandard breeders who are already in violation of current AWA laws but impose unfair restrictions on those who are responsible. And as I've already stated some of the people who keep animals in poor conditions don't even breed. Some are rescuers/rescues and others are people who collect animals and become overwhelmed. That's the problem with the photos we see. So many are taken out of context.



Then you really haven't been around that many. I've sat ringside at many shows and hear other breeders rip into each other all the time.

I am in many groups and forums and see smaller breeders tear each other apart. They blame the hate term breeders for all their problems (scapegoating) and they continue making blanket statements much like you are.



And as I've stated commercial breeders are already heavily regulated. I know breeders who hold state/local commercial licenses and they pay a fair amount and are subject to surprise inspections every 3 months.

I am also licensed and inspected by my local AC. It's very expensive $65/year per dog, plus $275/year for the permit. We are inspected annually. I do not breed for money but I already pay dearly to own my dogs. I pay just to have intact dogs and more than 3 dogs on the permit. I don't even breed often. How is this fair? And now if I want to have more than 5 breedable female animals I must be forced to either not ship or become USDA compliant.



So who/what determines a legitimate breeder? One who does not make money? So those breeders who make money aren't legitimate? And why shouldn't all breeders be regulated? I've known smaller breeders who don't take care of their dogs either. But if they don't have more than 4 breeding females they don't need to be regulated? Does mean they are legitimate breeders because they are under that limit? It should be a case by case basis, as you said but without passing more legislation in the process. There are plenty of rules and regulations on the books, but the Animal Rights Group continue to push for more and more regulations on ALL breeders. Do you agree with that? No, you've already said that, so what do you suppose we do when laws go out for a vote and says it will help end "those kinds of breeders" and in reality will hurt all of us? You stand up and say I'm legitimate and so righteous of a breeder don't pass this law. Stop illegitimate breeders but not us. Failed logic.




I don't agree with this statement at all. The Feds want the money, the animal rights groups want the power. The states are doing a good job. When they find out about unlicensed breeders or substandard conditions, they take action. The animal rights groups are the ones going into the states and trying to pass more and more restrictive laws, not the states themselves. My state tried to pass MSN. We are one of the most liberal states in the Union. Thankfully it didn't fly.

Bottom line, the animal rights groups are out to end all breeding period. Small breeders are an easy target because of the constant infighting, our size and lack of organization and funding. If you want to think this is an exaggeration, that is your choice. I know what I know and I know their motives and tactics. You can continue to think you'll be spared and not lift a finger to fight ongoing and future anti-breeding laws or you can open your eyes and look at the big picture. The new APHIS rules should be a wake up call to all. Just know there are many good people fighting in the trenches to try to protect all of our rights. But it does get tired and old and help is needed. Who will join us in that fight?

Here's a good article that sums it up better than I: http://doglawsatlarge.blogspot.com/2009/12/obituary-for-words-puppy-mill.html?m=1

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