Cross post and share with everybody.
I heard that there are plans for a big lawsuit against USDA for this nonsense rule.
This is so true. I hate to say but I've seen it coming and know that little by little it is happeniing. California is so bad now. It's a very liberal state and the Senators are in the pocket of the HSUS. I've written to them on many occasions and they always side with them on anything to do with animal restriction laws.
It's very frustrating because many of the points this article hits on sits well with so many breeders who feel they should be only ones allowed to breed and sell puppies. They don't see the bigger picture that this article outlines so well. This is our future folks, we need to wake up and stand up for breeders' rights!
The USDA just said small breeders fall under the "Retail Pet Store" classification. What happens when your city or town bans Pet Stores? Los Angeles enacted mandatory spay/neuter but left breeder exemptions if you showed, belonged a club, etc. Recently they rescinded them and now it is against the law to breed dogs in the city of Los Angeles. They shut down the 3 pet stores that sold puppies and said they could only sell shelter animals. The new director of the Animal Control wants to allow pregnant bitches who come into the shelter to have their litters so that they can sell them and increase revenue. I wish I was making this stuff up, but I'm not.
So the question is, are we going to sit back and let it happen or are we going to finally wake up and fight it?
The fellow breeders that belong to my club say that if they keep it quiet and you don't jump to try to get a license, you'll be fine. The truth is that USDA knows where everybody is and if you don't believe me check who has been in your website. Look for the USDA department of operations. Yes, they have been to your website and they know what dogs you have and how many litters you breed. If I'm not mistaken, this is getting into a harassment issue. Sounds familiar???? yes, pretty much like the IRS scandal.
For all of you who are so against any new legislation, (I am too, by the way) what are your thoughts, suggestions for the overpopulation of dogs in this country???
I am on the other end of this mess, doing more rescue than I would like, can afford or have room for!! And wishing that I had more time and more money for my Labs.
I am very involved in rescue, education of children and policy writing for our local shelter and we've been at this for years with no huge change!! So I'm asking, what do you all suggest?? It's a sad, expensive problem and perhaps responsible breeders have an answer?
These laws are being written and pushed into legislation by people who are holding litter after litter after litter of unwanted puppies while they are euthanized! Believe me when you have done that, you stop and think, it's heart wrenching!
Anyway, constructive thoughts and ideas only. Bitching between "sides" doesn't work so don't bother venting.
Thanks for your time.
There are no easy solutions. Even the best dogs sometimes find themselves homeless due to financial or legal circumstances. Here are a few thoughts, a start on this issue.
Both the puppy buyers /adopters and the breeders or rescues have to be aware that keeping a dog in its home forever involves making the right choices and commitments. Puppy buyers or adopters cannot adopt with the idea that the dog is disposable and manage to keep down the number of dogs needing rescue. It does no good to go adopt a puppy farm "Lab" to be a house dog if the pup was raised in a dark bark stall, even seeing people or the sky or hearing household noises. Although the pups can adjust, even the pup raised in a run with a dog house and no grass, just concrete, is developmentally disadvantaged compared to a puppy with plenty of enrichment.
Breeding a dog with a bad temperament, one that is not friendly to dogs and people, is bad. Temperament and behavior are not just environmental but also hereditary, to a great extent. How many of us see a puppy from our line elsewhere, even just from a shipped collection, and see the behavioral quirks of a sire or great grandsire, hopefully a heart warming quirk?
The vets and rescuers who mouth the platitudes that it is not the breed but the owners, in the case of fighting bred dogs, are not engaging their brains. I have a real problem with the vets who think that. I remember a nursing pit puppy rescued with his dam from an inner city shelter. When he grew up, he first killed one household cat, then another, then the other house dog. The owners wisely realized that they or their kids were next, and they euthanized him, to the rescue's horror. They were not bad owners, and not all pits are aggressive but this one was probably from generations of psychopaths or at least very aggressive dogs who wanted to kill. Conversely, I have seen the dogs with whip marks on them dumped because they would not fight, even when whipped so badly that they had permanent scars down their bodies--those pits are more the old style Petey in temperament.
We as breeders of Labrador Retrievers need to remember that even a Lab can be aggressive with dogs and people, and we should not excuse true aggression. Believe me, as a rescuer, a champion or FC Lab with aggression issues is even more dangerous than a street-bred fighting pit because he will not be treated with the caution needed to handle him safely around people or dogs.
The rescuers shipping temperamentally defective and developmentally delayed puppy mill survivors around the country are not helping, but these dogs get recycled if they come off the transport and don't make it in the mail order or internet adopting home. Are they counted twice or three times in the revolving door of rescue? Trucking dogs around isn't good rescue, but holding in a foster home and evaluating, much as the rescue of the Potomac seems to do, is the way to go. That way a square peg is not put into a round hole or wrong home, or at least the chances of it are decreased by a great deal.
Thanks, Rescue mom, for the questions. Who else wants to jump in with thoughtful points? I don't have the answer. Education of owners and their children helps. A disposable society, where even children are thrown out, doesn't help.
The over population problem in the country as a whole is a myth. There are shelter over population problems and many times these shelters are horribly mismanaged or there are other factors in that specific community that needs to be addressed. The economy also plays a big factor as well.
The numbers of shelter animals dying each year has gone down considerably in the past few decades while the number of pets and available homes in this country has risen. It was estimated in the 1980s that as many as 20 million dogs and cats were euthanized. Today that number is only 3 to 4 million. Then you must look at the type of animals euthanized. The majority of them are feral cats. Feral cats do not make good pets and can be a problem if they are not controlled as they breed litter after litter without interference from humans. Trap, neuter, release (TNR) are very effective programs if you have the volunteers and the funding to allow the cats to be handled. If not many are just trapped and euthanized. Other animals that are included in the numbers are old, ill, or aggressive animals that owners can not afford to have put down or treated by a veterinarian. So that leaves less adoptable pets that are put down. Back to the shelter problems and the economy. There is a huge feral dog problem in Detroit as many of the residents who left the dying city also left their animals behind as well. In Los Angeles, a recent documentary estimated that there were 30,000 feral dogs that run the streets of South Central (very poor community). There are volunteers that help with outreach and try to educate and spay/neuter in these poorer areas. But it is truly a regional thing and this is where many of the problems are. It's not every shelter, every city and every state that has a huge over population of adoptable animals as some lead us to believe. If this was true why are shelters importing hundreds of thousands of street dogs from other countries each year? (CDC estimates between 300,000-500,000/per year)
And back to blaming breeders for this problem, just look at the majority of animals in the shelters. Cats? There are not that many purebred cat breeders (and less than 2% of purebred cats are commercially bred so they don't really add to the problem either for those who want to blame commercial breeders) and last time I went to my shelter, there were no purebred cats there (I rarely see a remotely purebred cat so the 25% of shelter animals are purebred don't apply here).
So where do these animals come from? There are many reasons and sadly not an easy solution, but for all those humaniacs that cry stop the breeders, stop the breeders, they truly aren't interested in fixing the problem. They'd rather blame than come up with solutions. BREEDERS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM! Many small breeders do rescue as well as breed. This is across the board for ALL breeds. I have done rescue for my breeds and helped out with other breed rescues from time to time. I always call giving back. I do not blame the former owner. Situations change and I'm always happy to be there for a dog to help rehome it if necessary. This is and always has been the main reason of what shelters were for to begin with.
Spay/neuter programs work (but not mandatory spay/neuter). The ASPCA estimates that 78% of dogs are already spayed or neutered. That's pretty good and that is the main reason why the euthanasia numbers plummeted.
We've also seen a rather sick turn lately in that the promotion of owning and adopting a dog and it has become morally superior to that of owning a purebred. I, like so many others, own purebreds for many reasons that a shelter a dog would not fit. But now the Animal Rights are running off and closing down legitimate businesses in favor of opening stores that sell only shelter dogs. I thought this was America? Where is our choice and our rights? In Los Angeles, they passed mandatory spay/neuter but gave a breeder exemption. The breeders who showed or worked their dogs probably thought the exemptions were fair in that you had to prove you belonged to a club, your dogs were registered, you earned titles, etc. Five years later and your exemptions are gone along with your right to breed. The Hollywood crowd, lead by Animal Rights, said do away with the 3 legitimate businesses in town that sold puppies too. No purebreds are now allowed to bred or sold in the city of LA. But get this, with a large street dog population, the new director of Animal Control says if we get in pregnant females, we will let them have puppies and sell the puppies to increase revenue.
Yes, it's happening folks. The puppy buying public can no longer have a choice of what breed of puppy they'd like to buy in Los Angeles. It's a shelter puppy or nothing. Talk about creating a monopoly for the shelter industry. And it's not just LA anymore, San Diego just passed a ban and Oceanside is next. Now that the APHIS rules have been so prominent and in the forefront. Our classification as a retail pet store will fit nicely into the bans on pet stores selling puppies. Think about that for a while.
Unfortunately the title "breeder" seems to be a romantic notion for those who have no business doing it. So, yes, breeders are the problem. In this tight economy Mr. Joe Anybody can fancy himself as a breeder, breed whatever comes in his yard, do little or nothing to increase the health and well being of his litters, advertise them as some kind of exotic dog, charge top dollar to Mrs. Anybody who wants a puppy to shut her kids up for the weekend, care not a bit where that puppy ends up and if it is eventually spayed or neutered!!!! Multiply that by a million and bam.........
Perhaps responsible breeders need to be a bit more judgmental about who should be breeding rather than worry that legislation designed to go after the crappy breeders will eventually shut them down too? Somewhere along the line, the knack of breeding needs to be left up to those who know something about it. And I don't know how you would go about doing that. I think that educating the public far more about responsible breeding and not being afraid to compare yourself to Mr. Anybody in an effort to illustrate the differences might be a start.
The problem of homeless pets is a complex problem; economic, lack of education, yes, shelter mismanagement, being members of a throwaway society etc. But when we are euthanizing puppies who haven't even had the chance to be screwed up by some idiot, that's a whole other problem!!!!
Homeless pets is NOT a myth. In my small county alone, over 4,000 dogs were euthanized in 2012!!
Still don't know the answers but thanks for great thoughts.......
How about applying common sense to this, yes the elusive common sense! IF the problem is shipping sick/ill/defective puppies sight unseen to unsuspecting pet owners who are then stuck with no recourse, and a sick puppy, why not legislate a required contract with a significant penalty for non-compliance?
Suggested contract language that must be signed by both parties prior to sale could read something like this ~> "IF the puppy is shipped, not picked up in a face-to-face transaction, the Seller of puppyX guarantees puppyX to be healthy and supplies Purchaser with a veterinary certificate of health done within 24hrs of shipping, Purchaser of said puppyX agrees to take puppyX to veterinarian within 24hrs of shipping for a wellness exam. Should puppyX fail the Purchaser's Veterinarian wellness exam, ex a genetic, congenital issue or disease is observed, then Seller guarantees return shipping back to Seller at their expense with full purchase price refunded by FedEx Bank check within 48hrs of receiving puppy back."
This wording would be REQUIRED in all contracts of sale and the penalty to the person who does not do it would be substantial, say $10-20K for a first time offender? Yes, got your attention didn't it!!
It could potentially accomplish a variety of things, starting with making people responsible for what they produce, make a veterinarian (not an untrained pet owner) responsible for determining health of puppy, and the penalty is steep enough to get people's attention, the penalty is a contractual issue which then becomes a court issue. APHIS does not have the capacity/personnel to inspect and enforce and with government cutbacks this takes the need for hiring additional people away, but does not put the animal in jeopardy.
Just my 2cents.
How much does the dog over population issue have to do with the Human over population issue? Do they go hand in hand? Lots of insightful information being shared here, I hope it is heard beyond this message board. I for one breed and believe in good breeders. How do other countries deal with this issue and what are the success there?
I did read once that the pet over population has dramatically come down in the last 20 years. I do also believe that there is no pet overpopulation any more. There can be some counties that have too many unwanted pets, but it is not the general rule.
I loved your post! Well done.
Another two great posts! We needed to all unite and stop tearing down the designer breeders and other breeders. Divided we fell.
If ALL people shipping puppies had done this or we wouldn't be in this situation. The puppies should also have a mandatory fecal and a good vet check for hearts, eyes, ears, condition and joints, not just fill out paperwork.
This is the law the USDA should have passed if they wanted to stop the sale of sick puppies and it is too late.
These so called "radical animal rights groups" are NOT talking about responsible breeders and you all know it!!!!!!!
When have you EVER seen a picture of a clean whelping box full of well fed puppies laying with a well fed mama in a clean kennel, quiet outbuilding or someone's dining room?????? NEVER!!!! The pictures are of sickly puppies and poorly fed mamas in filthy, isolated conditions!!!
And no, these groups do not want all breeders to go away! Rescue groups have an invaluable resource in good, open minded breeders. FAR more than 5% of the dogs in the shelters are "purebred" according to the "breeders" who dump them because their "situation changed", they got sick of the puppies, didn't have buyers, ran out of money for food etc....... And yes, irresponsible breeders DO fancy themselves as breeders! They have a captive audience in an uneducated public and they aim to capitalize on that. Just because dogs don't come into a shelter or other dumping ground with all the necessary paperwork doesn't mean that someone didn't purposely breed them as "purebreds".
The breakdown of dogs who were euthanized in my shelter in 2012? Only 7% of them were deemed unadoptable due to illness, injury or behavior!!
Saying we have no right to police our own is a crock of crap!!! Because we haven't, others have, and now we're unhappy about that!! Perhaps if we had offered the legislation, we wouldn't be at this point.
Where are you Rescue Mom? Are you in the southeastern US or where that your shelters are like this?
I wish it were that easy. A number of years ago, I was talking to a guy about proposed legislation in NJ. I said this sort of legislation was the work of animal rights groups and it needed to be stopped. He replied, "Well, this is not all that bad. If we let them have this, maybe they will be satisfied and this will end." Wow! Nice guy, but very naive. As I have stated in the past, this is one small step, not the ultimate goal.
Giving up our rights in the hopes of controlling others is foolhardy.
Let me remind those who are thinking it is not so bad, the rule will have those of us who occasionally breed but mostly rescue reconsider taking in other folks' problems or castoffs. All we'd have to do is have an extra girl here before she gets spayed and there is an anonymous complaint, even if we never ever ship, except that one time maybe we give a pup to a relative. SLAM! Our little tiny breeding program is gone, decreed in violation and not for preservation of our breeding line not accepted by that one inspector. If Rescue Mom thinks it is bad now, it will get worse when the northern breed rescues stop helping, stop even sending rescue funds, let alone taking dogs. Some of us have already cut back and do more "virtual rescue" than taking dogs in, because we can't risk an extra dog at home.
Thanks, Rescue Mom, for sharing your perceptions. They are the reality I know, too, from being involved in rescue work.
I've owned both purebred Labs and rescue Labs. And while, generally speaking,
the purebreds have been easier to handle, justice demands that we
give the increasing number of rescue dogs our homes and our attention. Agreed - we cannot turn a blind-eye to these animals simply because of their problems.
Agreed - more importantly, we need ideas on how to end poor dog breeding practices. How can this issue be resolved outside of the Federal government?
Food for thought and thanks to all for sharing!
Maybe this is a dumb idea, but I have wondered what would happened if ALL breeders simply had to microchip all of their pups and register them with HomeAgain or whatever agency in their own names. Then when a puppy/dog is found as a stray, the chip is scanned and the breeder has to take the pup back. They could then locate the owner. There would be no shelters, breeders would have to do their own sheltering, no matter what kind of breeder they are. Local counties would continue to do kennel inspections for health and basic care, they also would give the fines or whatever as needed. Maybe this idea is simplistic, but breeders have to be responsible for what they produce. Over the years, I've taken 3 pups I've bred back to our home and found great homes for them. The situations were allergies, job loss, and a divorce. I as the breeder was responsible.
I agree about a more thorough vet check prior to shipping, but ultimately, it's between the buyer and breeder, not the government.
I like this idea best of all!
Actually, it's both irresponsible breeders AND irresponsible owners. The breeders need to be sure the owners understand (e.g. sign a contract) that if they cannot keep the puppy/dog FOR ANY REASON AT ANY AGE, the puppy/dog goes back to the breeder to be re-homed. Period.
Dogs that are not being actively shown in conformation or actively competing in performance events should be spayed/neutered.
Those two actions could help significantly reduce the number of dogs in shelters.
I found the following article that makes a TON of sense:
http://www.pet-law.com/articles/36
A couple of observations while reading it:
1.) There are no REAL national statistics on animals euthanized in shelters (Why not? If this is such a problem, shouldn't we be tracking the numbers? How can we say there is a problem, or how big the problem is without any data to support it? I can't believe that lawmakers are passing laws based on "observations" with no data to back them up!)
2.) Lays out the case pretty well for where the pets come from that are found in shelters and what has worked to reduce the numbers in the past
3.) Actually provides solutions to the problem that have been proven to be effective and shows why laws DO NOT WORK. It is very hard to argue with the information presented in this article.