8 intact females makes you a commercial breeder...

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/SB-308.pdf

Here's what I know so far: (posted from Pet-law)

Wisconsin SB 308, & AB 567
1- Offers no protection for the breeder or seller of an animal.
2- Lemon law portion applies to everyone who sells only one dog.
Applies to rescues, breeders, & other individuals.
3- Double the money owned for replacements & to cover vet bills for
any real, imagined, or perceived sick condition of a puppy. All
inheirted, congential problems the first year for any dog under 18
mo. old sold. Double the money. If the seller doesn't pay, then they
can be sued for 4 times the price of the puppy.
4- The three senators that are co-sponsoring SB-308 & the author are
on the committee that this bill went to....4 out of 5 senators on
this committee are on this bill. It will come out of this committee
with a recommendation for passage.
5- Regarding AB 567, was sent to the Committee on Consumer Protection
& Personal Privacy which Rep. Lothian chairs. He is one of the
authors of the bill. 4 other reps on that committee are co0sponsoring
the bill. Sinicki, Cullen, Jorgensen & Kerkman. There are 9 total
members in the committee in the Assembly. Those who have NOT signed
on to the bill are Krusick, Mursau, Townsend, & Davis.
6- We need the reps in those districts contacted by their
constituents to try and get them to drop off as sponsors of the bill.

Subject: breeder
SB-308 was introduced by Senator Plale on November 2, 2007
Bill History: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/SB308hst.html
Relating to: the sale of dogs, regulation of certain dog breeders,
granting rule-making authority, m...
SB-308 was referred to committee on Small Business, Emergency
Preparedness, Workforce Development, Technical Colleges and Consumer
Protection in the Senate on November 2, 2007
Bill History: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/SB308hst.html
Relating to: the sale of dogs, regulation of certain dog breeders,
granting rule-making authority, m...

Proposal: SB-38 (07-0065) (Makes a dog a WEAPON)
Bill History: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/SB38hst.html
Relating to: possession of dogs by certain felony offenders and
providing a penalty.
SB-38 was referred to committee on Judiciary, Corrections, and
Housing, by committee on Senate Organization in the Senate on
November 6, 2007

-567 was introduced by Representative Lothian on November 6, 2007
Bill History: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/AB567hst.html
Relating to: the sale of dogs, regulation of certain dog breeders,
granting rule-making authority, m...> AB-567 was referred to
committee on Consumer Protection and Personal Privacy in the Assembly
on November 6, 2007
Bill History: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/AB567hst.html
Relating to: the sale of dogs, regulation of certain dog breeders,
granting rule-making authority, m...
Subject: dog
AB-567 was introduced by Representative Lothian on November 6, 2007
Bill History: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/AB567hst.html
Relating to: the sale of dogs, regulation of certain dog breeders,
granting rule-making authority, m...
AB-567 was referred to committee on Consumer Protection and Personal
Privacy in the Assembly on November 6, 2007 Bill History:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/AB567hst.html
Relating to: the sale of dogs, regulation of certain dog breeders,
granting rule-making authority, m...> SB-38 was referred to committee
on Judiciary, Corrections, and Housing, by committee on Senate
Organization in the Senate on November 6, 2007> Bill History:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/SB38hst.html
> Relating to: possession of dogs by certain felony offenders and
providing a penalty.


Sentors that have signed on to the Senate Version. SB 308 The
Assembly one just came out yesterday.

Senators:
http://www.legis. Wisconsin. gov/w3asp/ contact/EmailDir ectory.aspx?
house=se
nate

If yahoo wrecks these e-mail address's all the @'s are
@legis.wisconsin.gov

Tim Carpenter Sen.carpenter@ legis.wisconsin. gov (60 266-8535
Robert Cowles Sen.cowles@legis. wisconsin. gov (60 266-0484
Pat Kreitlow Sen.Kreitlow@ legis.wisconsin. gov (60 266-7511
Julie Lassa Sen.lassa@legis. wisconsin. gov (60 266-3123
Mary Lazich Sen.lazich@legis. wisconsin. gov (60 266-5400
John Lehman Sen.Lehman@legis. wisconsin. gov (60 266-1832
Luther Olsen Sen.olsen@legis. wisconsin. gov (60 266-0751
Fred Risser Sen.risser@legis. wisconsin. gov (60 266-1627
Carol Roessler Sen.roessler@ legis.wisconsin. gov (60 266-5300
Jim Sullivan Sen.Sullivan@ legis.wisconsin. gov (60 266-2512
Robert Wirch Sen.wirch@legis. wisconsin. gov (60 267-8979

Representatives:
http://www.legis. wisconsin. gov/w3asp/ contact/EmailDir ectory.aspx?
house=as
sembly
Sheryl Albers (60 266-8531
Terese Berceau Rep.berceau@ legis.wisconsin. gov (60 266-3784
Garey Bies Rep.bies@legis. wisconsin. gov (60 266-5350
Spencer Black Rep.black@legis. wisconsin. gov (60 266-7521
David Cullen Rep.cullen@legis. wisconsin. gov (60 267-9836
Tamara Grigsby Rep.grigsby@ legis.wisconsin. gov (60 266-0645
Eugene Hahn Rep.hahn@legis. wisconsin. gov (60 266-3404
Gary Hebl Rep.hebl@legis. wisconsin. gov (60 266-7678
Andy Jorgensen Rep.Jorgensen@ legis.wisconsin. gov (60 266-3790
Dean Kaufert Rep.kaufert@ legis.wisconsin. gov (60 266-5719
Samantha Kerkman Rep.kerkman@ legis.wisconsin. gov (60 266-2530
Scott Newcomer Rep.Newcomer@ legis.wisconsin. gov (60 266-3007
Jim Ott Rep.OttJ@legis. wisconsin. gov (60 266-0486
Don Pridemore Rep.pridemore@ legis.wisconsin. gov (60 267-2367
Karl Van Roy Rep.vanroy@legis. wisconsin. gov (60 266-0616

Suggested letters from DFOW president:
Suggested letters for constituents that I started working on last
month. There are actually 3 bills that we should be concerned about.
Tracey Johnston
DFOW Vice President
Aldendale ESS
RE: Please oppose SB308
Dear Representative _________;
I understand that there was a bill introduced in the Senate on
November 2, 2007 (SB30 ) that supposedly is written to cover high
volume inferior dog breeding operations. The author of the bill is
seeking co-sponsors. I ask that you do not support this bill in any
way and if it goes to a voting committee that you are on, that you
oppose the bill in its entirety.
There has never been supporting data to warrant a bill of this type.
The media coverage that has focused on the so called "puppy mills"
have NEVER provided documented facts or figures. There are a handful
of defective dogs that they feature time and time again. If there are
so many defective puppies in this State, why is it necessary to keep
showing the same dogs?
The entire bill makes it seem as if ALL BREEDERS are automatically
guilty of being irresponsible. Where is the protection for breeders?
Where is a false accusation clause? Once a puppy leaves a breeders
home, they do not have control over how the dog is taken care of. Are
the new owners feeding properly? Giving proper exercise? Giving
proper supervision so that the puppy doesn't ingest something toxic
or electrocute themselves by chewing on appliance cords? Are there
young children in the home that could cause a brain injury to the pup
by dropping it on its head? Poor nutrition as well as pediatric
sterilization of animals can cause a host of problems that may mimic
inherited disease. There is no provision to allow a second opinion
from another veterinarian.
This bill has a puppy lemon law built into the language that would
affect ALL BREEDERS in the State, not just the large scale inferior
ones and it includes all hobbyists. The problem with puppy lemon laws
is that you cannot legislate genetics as genetics is a crap shoot.
Among the hobbyist community, we use terms such as "don't throw the
baby out with the bathwater", and be careful of the "bingo" effect.
These terms refer to genetic diseases of which there is no known mode
of inheritance.
It is scientifically impossible to know the inheritance mode of ALL
genetic disease. In the case of canine seizures, if there is not
evidence of ingesting something toxic or a brain tumor, veterinarians
call seizures "epilepsy". Epilepsy is considered to be inherited.
However, seizures may also be caused by over-exertion. One seizure
within the 365 days of purchase could cause the buyer to sue the
breeder and the breeder in turn could face fines for something that
has NO SCIENTIFIC CAUSE. Hip Dysplasia is sometimes considered to be
inherited. HOWEVER, there have been cases of OFA rated excellent dogs
that have produced dysplastic off-spring. Genetics is still a mystery
and no matter how much research you may do, you could still produce
off-spring with some type of inherited disease.
Many hobby breeders have their own contracts to protect their
interests as well as their breed's interests. This type of law would
invalidate those existing contracts that are written to protect the
buyer, seller, puppy and the legacy of the particular breed of dog.
These are topics that unless you are a hobby breeder, you will never
understand the reasons for this type of contract.
The Department of Agriculture is given entirely too much jurisdiction
to write the rules. I'd like to know how many of those individuals in
the Department have ever bred a litter of animals, competed with
animals, trained animals for service work, or even are capable of
identifying the more than 145 breeds of AKC recognized dogs. This
allows unqualified people to make rules for something they know
little about. And while I'm on this topic, why isn't the State
Veterinarian position an elected position? If the State is going to
implement this type of law, it needs a qualified veterinarian to make
decisions and in order to be qualified, the veterinarian needs to
specialize in canine reproduction OR canine genetics.
Finally, the funding for this type of program once it is implemented
would never be self-funding. In particular, the possibly of law suits
against the State (Puppy Lemon laws are currently being challenged in
other States) could cause a huge financial deficit. People are going
to stop licensing their dogs and go underground. The State will lose
income, not gain it and any fiscal projections are going to be skewed
because of this. Hobbyists will no longer sell puppies to people in
our State and the State will have effectively eliminated the best
source for the general public to find a well-bred dog.
There are two additional bills that I would like you to oppose:
Senate Bill 38
1) This bill is suggesting that intact dogs can be used as a weapon.
This sets a dangerous precedent. A baseball bat, a butter knife, a
scarf, even a rock can be considered a weapon. I do not see the bill
banning felons from owning these items.
2) A convicted felon, if released, has served their debt to society,
especially in the case of juvenile offenders. I believe it was in
Racine this past April where they were speaking of bringing felony
charges against some young men for stretching shrink wrap across a
street. Yes this was dangerous and yes they should be charged. But,
after having served their time for a moment of bad judgment, why
should they not be allowed to live with an intact dog in the future?
What if one of these young men is still a minor when released from
prison and his parents own and show dogs as a hobby? The parents
would be penalized because of their child's moment of insanity.
With this law, Martha Stewart would not be allowed to have intact
animals without being granted a waiver. I'm sure she is not raising
her Chow Chows for so called "gang banging" activities.
3) How would responsible breeders make sure that their puppy is not
going to a home where a felon lives? Would we have to do criminal
back ground checks on every potential puppy buyer? Is it even
possible for an average citizen to have access to those records? If
we were unable to find out this information, would we be liable for
selling an intact puppy to a felon? Would we have to spay or neuter
all of our puppies so that we would not be liable? A reputable
breeder will tell their puppy people not spay or neuter their puppies
until they have reached a MINIMUM of 6 months of age.
And, regarding the intact status of dogs, there is a tremendous
amount of existing data regarding early pediatric spay/neuter which
states that it can cause higher incidents of bone cancer and
incontinence, especially when done before the growth plates close. I
can send you this information as a PDF file if you would like.
4) Regarding the Fiscal Estimate for enforcing this bill, it states -
0- for cost to local governments. This is not a true figure. How much
does it cost local government to track firearm sales? This bill would
cost the same fiscally as you would be giving an intact dog the same
status as a firearm. Another cost involved would be the cost for
holding a hearing to allow an exemption. This is not shown in the
fiscal estimate either. This is yet another bill that creates
unnecessary taxpayer burdens.
Assembly Bill 436
This bill allows a judge to order a pet be placed with a humane
society if the divorcing parties are unable to stipulate to the
placement of a pet. Pets are considered personal property in the
State of Wisconsin per section 174.06, subsections 5 and 8 of State
code and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources chapters 12.54 &
12.55. In short, this bill takes away a person's Federal Fourteenth
Amendment right to due process by allowing a judge to order personal
property to be given to an organization WITHOUT COMPENSATION.
In closing, I'd like you to include this letter as opposition to all
3 bills

Gina - as an individual what is the BEST approach I can take to voice my opinion? I've already signed a petition but it is better to do direct contact - letter or e-mail?

Written hard copy letters are still the best bet, then fax and then email.

AKC has picked up on this...

Wisconsin Commercial Breeder/Consumer Protection Bills Introduced
Print This Article
[Friday, November 09, 2007]
Two new bills have been introduced in Wisconsin, both of which seek to regulate those classified as commercial breeders and provide remedies for purchasers of dogs. Assembly Bill 567, sponsored by Representative Lothian, has been assigned to the Assembly Committee on Consumer Protection and Personal Privacy; its companion, Senate Bill 308, is sponsored by Senator Plale and has been assigned to the Senate Committee on Small Business, Emergency Preparedness, Workforce Development, Technical Colleges, and Consumer Protection. It is imperative that breeders and concerned dog owners contact their representative and their senator, as well as the committee members who will first consider this bill, to express their concerns with the current wording of the proposed legislation.

The American Kennel Club supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. Additionally, we support reasonable laws and regulations that are intended to protect the pet-buying public in obtaining a sound dog of the breed represented.

If adopted, the proposed legislation would:
Classify those who sell at least 60 dogs in a year, or who have at least eight breeding female dogs, as "commercial dog breeders." Such persons will be subject to:
licensing requirements;
annual reporting requirements;
rules promulgated by the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection regarding minimum standards of care, engineering standards for facilities, and transportation standards;
and investigations, inspections, and penalties.
The threshold of "eight breeding female dogs" is vague and potentially problematic. Depending upon what qualifies as a "breeding female dog", the provisions of this bill may apply to hobby breeders with one large litter of puppies comprised primarily of females. This threshold must be deleted or clarified—by better describing the age or characteristics of a "breeding female dog"—to ensure that this bill does not become an overreaching effort to regulate most dog breeders.


Require any seller to provide remedies to a puppy buyer if the puppy becomes ill.


Mandate that any person who sells a dog must also furnish a written description of the remedies provided to purchasers under this bill.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Contact your Representative and Senator and voice your concerns with the bill as currently written. To find both your representative and senator, click here.

Contact the members of the committees that will consider this bill and voice your opposition to the bill as written:

Assembly Committee on Consumer Protection and Personal Privacy:

Representative Thomas Lothian, Chairman
Room 306 North
State Capitol
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
Phone: (608) 266-1190
Fax: (608) 282-3632
Rep.Lothian@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Brett Davis, Vice-Chairman
Room 308 North
State Capitol
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
Phone: (608) 266-1192 or (888) 534-0080
Fax: (608) 282-3680
Rep.Davis@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative John Townsend
Room 22 West
State Capitol
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, WI 53708
Phone: (608) 266-3156 or (888) 529-0052
Fax: (608) 282-3652
Rep.Townsend@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Samantha Kerkman
Room 103 West
State Capitol
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
Phone: (608) 266-2530 or (888) 534-0066
Fax: (608) 282-3666
Rep.Kerkman@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Jeffrey Mursau
Room 18 North
State Capitol
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, WI 53708
Phone: (608) 266-3780
Fax: (608) 282-3636
Rep.Mursau@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative David Cullen
Room 216 North
State Capitol
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
Phone: (608) 267-9836 or (888) 534-0013
Fax: (608) 282-3613
Rep.Cullen@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Peggy Krusick
Room 128 North
State Capitol
P.O. box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
Phone: (608) 266-1733
Fax: (608) 282-3607
Rep.Krusick@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Christine Sinicki
Room 321 West
State Capitol
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, WI 53708
Phone: (608) 266-8588 or (888) 534-0020
Fax: (608) 282-3620
Rep.Sinicki@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Andy Jorgensen
Room 412 North
State Capitol
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
Phone: (608) 266-3790
Rep.Jorgensen@legis.wisconsin.gov

Senate Committee on Small Business, Emergency Preparedness, Workforce Development, Technical Colleges, and Consumer Protection:

Senator Robert Wirch, Chairman
Room 317 East
State Capitol
P.O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707-7882
Phone: (608) 267-8979 or (888) 769-4724
Fax: (608) 267-0984
Sen.Wirch@legis.wisconsin.gov

Senator Tim Carpenter, Vice-Chairman
Room 306 South
State Capitol
P.O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707-7882
Phone: (608) 266-8535 or (888) 249-8173
Fax: (608) 282-3543
Sen.Carpenter@legis.wisconsin.gov

Senator Jeffrey Plale
Room 313 South
State Capitol
P.O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707-7882
Phone: (608) 266-7505
Fax: (608) 266-7483
Sen.Plale@legis.wisconsin.gov

Senator Neal Kedzie
Room 126 South
State Capitol
P.O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707-7882
Phone: (608) 266-2635
Fax: (608) 282-3551
Sen.Kedzie@legis.wisconsin.gov

Senate Carol Roessler
Room 19 South
State Capitol
P.O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707-7882
Phone: (608) 266-5300 or (888) 736-8720
Fax: (608) 266-0423
Sen.Roessler@legis.wisconsin.gov

For more information, contact AKC's Canine Legislation Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.

What is next? You should ask your senators and representatives this. Will a husband and wife be able to sue their parents (or grandparents) because one of them had some unknown genetic problem that was passed on to a grandchild? If not, why not? Is this any different?

Seems to me it would require fewer resources to go after what is probably a small group than would be required to monitor every single breeder within the state, even folks who have never had a problem with or a complaint from a puppy purchaser. Unless they are looking for some half-a**ed way to make money (and this won't do that) Wisconsin should have a program in place where puppy buyers can file a complaint against BYBs or irresponsible breeders.

They shouldn't be bothering you folks who go to the time and expense to do all they can to eliminate or lessen the possibility of problems within a certain breed.

Of interest, there is a roundtable discussion with state legistlators being held on 11/15. Now one of the groups sponsoring it is a peta like group:
http://www.allanimals.org/One_time_events/puppymillRT.html

BUT one of the groups has as of tonight, suddenly become against this bill which I think may be a good sign:
http://www.nowisconsinpuppymills.org/legislation.html
For ex. they say this on their web site;
Also remember that QUALITY HOBBY BREEDERS and Humane Organizations require that dogs be returned to them if for any reason the owners no longer want the dog. (See Breeders With Pride: Responsible Breeders Speak Out and Identifying a Quality Breeder.)

Gina, see what you think of this turn of events.
Our kennel club is going to be attending this "discussion" en mass.
Deb

I am going to the roundtable "discussion" tonight and am going to try to speak on behalf of reputable/ethical breeders and dog owners. I have printed out the "talking points" against this bill, I have copies of puppy contracts, code of ethics, etc. showing that reputable breeders (and I realize PETA states there are no reputable breeders) do already have contracts that show what they will do if a dog doesn't work out or has health problems.

Can anyone think of anything else I should bring with to this meeting? Any points I should cover that I haven't thought of? I am a bit nervous that I am going to be jumped on by the animal rights people but someone has to say something. Wish me luck.......too bad I don't own a real flame suit to wear there!

Deb,
I don't know if this will help you in any way.
I don't know if any of the legislature's angles relate to puppy mills (in general) and the problems associated with them but here's a link (http://www.naiaonline.org/issues/California_graphs.htm#graph1)
to the California info showing that the actual number of stray dogs being impounded and put to sleep in their state has actually been dropping and they have a lot more people, dogs, and breeders (AND UNSCRUPULOUS PEOPLE TOO) than there are in Wisconsin. I haven't heard of puppy mills in Wisconsin. I think you ought to tell them Wisconsin breeders will be looking at the legality of doing a 99 year lease or some form of rental agreement for your dogs. (I'm being facetious obviously) Otherwise a lot of folks are going outside the state to buy pups.

They ought to be spending their time educating the public on safe places to buy dogs, not just throw a bandaid on what is for all practical purposes a nonexistent problem in Wisconsin. Are they just anti-dog in Wisconsin? Next thing you know they'll be putting toll booths at state lines to tax tourists travelling with dogs. This isn't going to bode well with all the hunters you have up there either. I hope they are helping out with this. Good luck tonight.

Thanks for the info. I find the fact that the animal control budget went up tremendously after mandatory spay/neuter in Santa Cruz very interesting. So far that isn't part of the bill but once they get a foot in the door......

There are puppy mills in WI -- two horrible ones have gotten a lot of press and the one is suspended from AKC for 10 years but then he just went to designer type dogs (and claims he "invented" the "puggle" which is just a mixed breed pug and beagle with health problems). Link to them is here: http://puppyhavenkennel.com/ but read this quote from him (under the news section):
"He’s decided to keep the “recipes” for his latest crossbreeds—the miniature Saint Bernard and a toy-dog smorgasbord he terms the “tiny mite”—top secret. “The mini Saint Bernard looks like the Saint Bernard, but it doesn’t shed and won’t get hair in the house,” Mr. Havens said proudly. “Some of the big Saint Bernards slobber, and the mini Saint Bernards don’t. They have what’s called ‘dry mouth.’” There’s already a 25-person waiting list for his creation."

That is where some of this is coming from. The Amish and Menonites have some puppy mills up north towards the MN border as well.

It'd be nice to say the AKC dosen't condone designer dogs, but then, labs? Oh, Well. It would be nice if someone could come up with a way to host free canine education programs, like at park districts, etc.

Deb - how did the discussion go?

Hi Gina:
I posted under the other WI Breeder bill topic.