I will be contributing to this fund. If this is allowed to stand, it will set a terrible precedent. You may want to pitch in a couple of dollars too.


from NAIA.............

You are receiving this message because you are in our records as the president/delegate for your club. If this is incorrect, please forward to the appropriate contact in your club.

In recent weeks our community, our state, our region and our country have suffered one blow after another. We have responded as we always do; with compassion, open hearts and generosity. We are asking that you help a little more.

For over two years, German Shepherd fancier and breeder Danielle Weitz has been pressured by the town where she lives to apply for a kennel license. Franklin Lakes based this demand on the fact that since she bred and sold puppies she must be a business. The town has no limit law, her dogs were licensed and she had no health violations. Danielle did not apply for the license maintaining she was a hobby breeder, not a business.

The judge disagreed. She was fined the lowest amount, and the judge ordered several things. He ordered that her home be inspected (after passing two other times) and her dogs be inventoried. He ordered her to cease and desist breeding/selling of dogs. He gave her 90 days to apply for and receive a kennel license before she could continue to pursue her hobby. If she did not apply, or the application was denied, he ordered her home be inspected and her dogs inventoried every THIRTY (30) days as long as she lives there.

There are two issues at hand, and they should be of the utmost importance to all breeders and fanciers in the state. The first is the right granted by the 4th Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches…”

The second is the interpretation that the sale of even one puppy constitutes a business. This is precedent setting and if other towns follow suit, no breeder will be permitted to sell even one puppy without being consider a business. The repercussions for home-based breeders will be devastating.

While Danielle is clearly being impacted here, she also understands that this is a dangerous ruling for all of you. Because of that, she has decided to appeal, and she can use your help. Please consider making a donation to the Legal Trust Fund set up to assist Danielle in the upcoming legal battle to help protect our rights. Please discuss this with your clubs and your members, so that those who would like to send a donation will have the correct information.

Checks may be made out to Trautmann & Associates Attorney Trust Account, and mailed to:
Trautmann & Associates
262 East Main Street
Rockaway, NJ 07866

Or you may call the office at (973) 627-8000 to arrange for a credit card payment.

Throughout the two year ordeal, Danielle has been supported by many individuals and organizations, including the NJ Federation of Dog Clubs and NAIA Trust of NJ. We have been by her side in court and at public meetings, and wholeheartedly support this appeal. We thank you in advance for any help your club or members can give.

If you have any questions, please direct them to Barb at barbreichman@comcast.net.

Jeffrey Ball Barbara Reichman
President, NJFDC NJFDC Board Member
Director, NAIA Trust of NJ

How many dogs does she have? Are all of the dogs kept in the house?

There is a local silver breeder with a similar situation, she has 80 dogs living in her house, claims she isn't a business. I feel sorry for the 80 dogs, something has to be done to look out for the well being of the dogs. If there is a LOT of dogs then the laws pertaining to breeding as a business protects everyone including the dogs.

Whereas I don't know the situation personally, the dogs live in the house and there are something like seventeen as of March, according to a quick search online. She was also cited for letting them occupy more than 25% of her home, according to the article. Would she be bothered by authorities if she had Chihuahuas instead of GSDS? There were no complaints about the conditions of the dogs. If she didn't breed, would she be allowed to keep them, given that there are no dog limits in the town? If she did rescue and had even more dogs, would she be in trouble? I don't know. Maybe one can only have robotic dogs soon in NJ.

Why are we singled out for business practicing? People sell lots of things on ebay and sell tomatoes in their front yards, sell anything from eggs to Christmas trees, baked goods.

I do think that there will be few places left for us to go and have dogs.

according to the county laws where I live at this time,

any "intentional or unintentional breeding" of any animal must BE LICENSED through the Co. Animal Care and Control Dept.

Opens anyone up wouldn't you say.

A 1 year Co rabies tag is also mandatory and is $75 per un-altered animal

Are these 17 dogs over a year old or does that number include puppies? 17 adults is too many dogs to keep in a house. By her local code definition she is a kennel, hobby or otherwise and she should comply and get the license. The Health Department was the first to get involved so somebody must have complained.

It sounds like her town will be writing a new ordinance to set a limit, now is the time to get involved in this process. Do your research to see what other town have in their ordinances. These limits usually specify how many adult dogs and the amount of litters/year that are acceptable. I doubt that selling one puppy constitutes a business.

Most counties do charge more for yearly dog licenses for dogs that aren't spayed or neutered, I don't think that's unusual.

Let's not miss the point. The judgement and how it could effect all of us is the problem we need to focus on.

I had a similar situation with only 9 adult dogs at the time.

I was fined for not having a business license. The county would not give business license for a kennel, so I had to move.

There was no business going on just a couple of litters/year and my dogs would all be indoor dogs.

I think you missed the point. A breeder that keeps 17 large dogs in a house gives cause for the town to introduce legislation. The town is creating a new law putting limits on the amount of dogs someone can have. Most towns have limits, I don't see how this case effects all of us. Zoning has a lot to do with it. If your goal is to have a horse or raise chickens you don't move into the suburbs.

Would't it have been easier for to just buy the kennel license, and stay under the radar?
Yes, 17 lg dogs in a house is too many. How can they get enough excercise ?
I lived in a lovely residential area , and had two dogs , one Ch. being pregnant, I sold my house , moved to the country, buy my kennel license and have my vaccines and records in order , to stay out of the lime light. It's a good thing to do.

"Do your research to see what other town have in their ordinances. These limits usually specify how many adult dogs and the amount of litters/year that are acceptable. I doubt that selling one puppy constitutes a business. "

Wrong. A breeder in another NJ town with no dog limits, a breeder who had not had a litter in four years, and that was a litter of one that she kept, was recently bothered by animal control, who, according to neighbors, had other folks with them when they arrived earlier this year. The breeder was not home, but had nothing to hide. She called her attorney, made a date, and they came back with the health inspector. She has FOUR little dogs, all licensed, only one spayed. They looked in every nook and cranny of her property for other dogs and any violations. Her breed tends to low fertility and single puppy litters. The town told her that if she has one visiting girl to her boy or sells even one puppy, she is a business, whether or not the IRS calls her dogs a hobby. The price of one puppy would not even equal her breeding costs. She is truly in love with her breed. If she has another litter, she may keep it, but even giving it away is a gray area she was told. The law in the township was very quietly changed a few year ago, and only a few knew it was changed to make breeding a crime. See also NJ state law and how it has changed to an area open to interpretation.

There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. It is time to stand and fight, firmly and intelligently. What happens in NJ will spread.

A local ordinance limiting the amount of dogs isn't going to affect us all. Before this post I never heard of any place having a no limit law, they were lucky. If I lived in her area I would be upset that her actions were responsible for bringing about new laws. She doesn't have 6 dogs or 9 dogs she has 17. The locals are lucky they know the laws are changing so they can try to have some say instead of them doing it quietly without any input.

Whistle in the dark, pretend that your dogs and hobby are safe, that there is no HSUS, no media portraying the breeding of dogs as evil, and that no one is trying to make it illegal to have meat to feed anybody, dogs or humans. In your unique world, towns with no limit laws don't exist, and I suppose neither does the animal control officer or the AKC in that world. You find her at fault for having lots of dogs or puppies and dogs. Realize that the average person thinks that anyone with more than one or two dogs is weird, as is showing dogs. What gives someone the right to say that her hobby is dangerous, but yours is not? Is it because she has GSDs instead of Labs? What if they suddenly start citing the sizes of dogs dangerous, as was done in part of Germany, where a Lab is considered dangerous by its size, over 40 lb? Will that get your attention?

IDK, yes you and some of the others are missing the point. You all tend to focus solely on a person's numbers without taking into consideration other factors. It's nothing more than a judgmental reaction from those snobby show breeders who think that only people who breed and take care of dogs like themselves should be allowed to breed. From the information given, this person has done nothing wrong. The dogs were not in poor conditions. I have heard that several dog club members with the above type of attitude or jealous over the success or just hatred toward another person has sparked anonymous complaints to NJ AC.

Joan is very correct here that if this person loses her dogs and the judge rules that she is indeed conducting a business, that it will affect all of us who consider ourselves "hobby breeders." How many of you are lucky enough to live in a residential area that allow businesses to be conducted from the home? How many of us will be able to spend thousands to construct kennels that are in compliance with the USDA?

I also read an interesting blog the other day about how essentially owning and breeding dogs are already illegal since in most areas you must obtain a special license or permit in order to own and breed. Now there's a scary thought.

It's just really sad when people go out of their way trying to make trouble for someone else.

At the heart of this battle are the definitions of "kennel" and "business," not numbers of dogs. The NJ State already provides for licensing of kennels for fewer than 10 dogs, at a fee of $10 per year. What is at stake is this: if you live in NJ and have even one litter of one or two puppies, are you a business and is your house a kennel? If a breeder agrees to be a kennel, he or she loses the right to allow dogs to lounge on the sofa or by the side of the bed, and the dog may no longer be a true companion to the breeder. Franklin Lakes seeks to prove that their definition of a business is one at which the IRS would laugh, making this expensive hobby a business.

Be careful what you wish for. This is the same state where if you don't crate your dog, you could be charged this year with animal cruelty by overly zealous SPCA officers armed with guns. Don't forget that animal abuse is in the eye of the beholders, or those wishing to make money off charges or get or "seize" nicely bred, well socialized dogs for adoption events when the southern dogs and overseas dogs are lacking. A Lab breeder living in a commercial area was pursued by animal "specialists" who accused her of being an abuser because she only had 42 inch crates when the Labs were inside instead of out on the fenced acreage or loose in the house. Charges were dismissed, but her name is still smeared across the internet by animal rights advocates. Is there a coincidence that she was the club's delegate to the NJ Federation of Dog Clubs and lived in the town where the club's specialty was held? I don't know. Is the same crate used inside the house big enough in the vehicle or will SPCA quibble on that, too.

Not to mention that these new restrictions often are laced with hidden agendas and opportunities to tighten the nooses. While we can all agree that animal abuse is wrong and needs to be acknowledged, as NJ stated, it is subjective. Having delved further and further into the animal rights movement and rescues on the East Coast, it's pretty disturbing. Most breeders have no clue and would rather remain ignorant to what is happening. We may think a bill looks good on the outside and think we are doing what's right by agreeing that we'd like to see certain practices stopped, but you must read the whole bill. Many cruel practices are already addressed in current laws that still go unenforced.

I dare anyone who wants to see what we are up against to visit the "I Hate Dog Breeders" group on Facebook. They are well over 10,000 likes and not slowing one bit. They do advocate violence against breeders and Facebook won't take down their group. It's pretty scary if you think you are "better" than any other breeder. They make no distinction. Please do not try to justify your practices to them. They've heard it all before and will eat you up and spit you out before you can say boo.

From IDK - "NJ wants to establish an animal abuser registry and prohibit animal cruelty violators from owning domestic companion animals and from working at animal-related enterprises."

Do you really want this?!!! Do you know that once accused, although falsely, of child abuse in the US, most states keep your name on their registry, even though charges were dismissed?? Our dear friends are spending over $10,000 to get their name off our state's child abuse registry - their overzealous doctor acccused of abuse due to their daughter's eating disorder; charges were almost immediately dropped but their name remains on the registry.

I can just imagine the trumped up abuse charges by a disgruntled relative, an upset neighbor, animal rights activists, an ex, etc. Please NO!