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?

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.