Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If you want access to members only forums on HSO, you will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member. 😀

  • RECEIVE THE GIFTS MEMBERS SHARE WITH YOU HERE...THEN...CREATE SOMETHING TO ENCHANT OTHERS THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE

    You know what we all love...

    When you enchant people, you fill them with delight and yourself in return. Have Fun!!!

Sign in to follow this  
AlexRM

This is rediculous!!

Recommended Posts

Please check this out! I Think this is completely and utterly rediculous!http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/...mp;session=ls85

Please take your time to read this, it may put some of the best breeders in MN out of business.

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

give this a try www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S0121.0.html&session=ls85

Some of the stuff in it is a real joke. it won't make us stop breeding britts but it will really up the price for people buying pups. Please contact your legislators and let them know it is over board.

Ike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you own more than 6 breeding females? (line 1.19) If you do, you should have to pay a licensing fee and have regular inspections. If each of your females welps 2 liters X 5-10 pups each litter, I think you can spring for a fee smaller than the cost of one pup. This will not put GOOD BREEDERS out of business. It is trying to help regulate the puppy mills. The ones who pump out 50 peka[PoorWordUsage]sudoodles a week. They are not the type of "kennel" I would want to do business with. Most sporting breed kennels won't be affected. That is, until they change it 10 times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that some language is a little off, I don't see where this will greatly increase the cost to anyone raising puppies. The fee's don't seem that out of line to me, but again I'm not the one paying for them. Every other business in the state must be licensed, I'm not surprised the started this little campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see where this should "really up the price" for breeders. $75 for a small breeder per year? C'mon...you have to have at least 6 intact, adult females to qualify.

So - 6 females x and average of 6 pups per year (I've seen up to 13 per female!) = 36 pups. It's an extra $2 per pup.

While I'm not into more government, I read the bill and it doesn't seem too out of line. It sets requirements for shelter, space, socialization, etc. I guess I don't see where serious breeders will have *any* trouble meeting these requirements. I'm in the market for a gun dog now and I've seen a few operations where, seemingly, the prime motivation for the breeders is the almighty dollar - and that is pretty sad.

Just my $.02 - worth every penny charged.

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While on the surface, this actually looks good and I'm all for trying to eliminate puppy mills or people who breed for money only... The problem is that it will be hard to enforce.

The legitimate breeders will pay their dues and follow all the protocol, the questionable breeders will not. They will risk getting caught, and then deal with whatever consequences come their way then... which will be minimal. I highly doubt that this license will insure compliance even if purchased. I don't see annual checks by the govt. to monitor the kennel operation(s). So in essence, we are only adding a fee to continue to pad the govts. coffers. It may be written 6+ females "now" to get this enacted, but as anything with the govt., it will soon emcompass all breedings/breeders, as many unscrupulous breeders will go down to 5 females in order to stay out of the govts. watchful eye. I would easily not be under the watch of this program as it stands, I usually only have 1 or a max. of 2 breeding aged females, and even then I only have 1 litter every 2-3 years... but I doubt this will turn into anything more than a way to collect license fees and to let the IRS know who is a large breeder to corroberate their tax statements.

Now for my soap box...

Better yet, more so than licensing, we need the AKC to mandate that all breedings in order to be registered, are bred from parents with cleared screenings of breed specific inherited disorders. They would set the minimum threshold for each breed. You meet the minimum threshold of compliance and the puppies are eligible for registration. If not... their offspring are not eligible. This too will eliminate or at least make it harder to run a puppy mill as there is no way they would be able to clear all of their brood stock, and most people are not interested in buying "unregisterable" puppies... except those buying a Lhasadoodleese... and then they get what they pay for. This will also give those perspective buyers at least some semblence of satisfaction that they are recieving a puppy with a better than average chance of remaining free of health issues pertaining to inherited disorders. Also they should mandate that at least 1 vet check is completed per puppy at the date of it's 1st vaccination and it must be done by a licensed vet. A copy of the vet check and vaccination proof given to all buyers of puppies and when the buyers send in their registration papers that sign off that they have recieved the vet record. Socialization is and would be hard to regulate. You have to look at the pups 1st hand to see for yourself if they've been socialized... A lot of the above comes down to educating the public on what to look for in a breeder and/or puppy. But in the end unfortunatley, many people use their checkbooks to make the buying/breeding decision as opposed to a proven set of criteria.

Good Luck!

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I go into more detail with the issues I have with it, let me say I think their hearts are in the right place and that I agree with Labs on letting the AKC have more reg. control.

cw62- 1st off if you read down to Sec. 2 Subd. 8 a dog is an adult at 20 wks (5 months of age) So yes I have 6 females that they consider breeding females. It works like this, I have young females as follow: 11/2 yrs old, 1 yr old, 1 yr old, and 6 months old, I also have 2 old dogs already in use. I will not breed them until they are 2yrs old and pass things like the OFA and my idea of what a good temperment & hunting qualities are. So I have 4 female that this bill considers breeding females, that may never be bred. I try to get 1 litter every other year out my females, not 2 litters a year which by the way would not be allowed under this bill as well. (Sec 4 Subd. 14 #3)

Sec 4. Subd 7: This is worded similar to feed lot ordiances and I will bet in the near future we will have to have a feed lot premit. Which is not free.

Sec 4 Subd 11: smoke dectors & carbon monoxide testers in my kennel & whelping build. What are the dogs going to do if they go off call 911?

Sec 4 Subd 14 #2: Females & males will need a vet within 4 months of breeding. This will make more vet bills.

Sec 4 Subd 14 #3: females must be rested 1 heat cycle, great thats the way it should, How do you prove it. The reponse I got when I questioned this is get a vet check. (so now we have them checked at 6 months before a breeding & then again at 4 months. more vet bills and money). This also says you can't breed littermates. So as written you could breed brothers & sisters as long as they come from different litters.

Sec 4 Subd 16: a mother must remain with her pups until 7 weeks. (unweaned) If you give a pup their 1st shot before they have been weaned for 2 wks the mothers immunities will negate the effectiveness of the shots. It also states that pups can't be sold until 8 wks old. There are a lot of trainers that believe this is to late that pups need to be in their new homes at 7wks when ever possible.

Sec 5 E: A pup under 8wks can't be transported, does this mean a house call for a vet, more money.

The fee for the license is not much, the vet bills can and will add up.

I would bet that there are more problems with back yard breeders then responsible hobby breeders, and there is no regualtion on them. That is why I agree with Labs, that the AKC, the one place that can regulate registration and in effect the value of a litter should be the ones taking a lead in this. There are alot of things open to interpretation that need to clarified in this bill.

These are just my thoughts, most breed clubs, registrees and vets have their own recomendations, and I don't think they have been asked for input on this topic. I also think the license should be based on litters produced not females owned.

Ike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make some good points and many that a non-dog breeder would have looked right past. Do you know where they got the input for the language of the law? Let me guess..humane society? I do think the goal is a noble one, protecting the animals which is who/what suffers the most from poorly run mills. It sounds like people in the know have some problems with the bill, what has the feedback been on your questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still waiting for some feedback, but our Rep. Jeanne Poppe & Senator Dan Sparks have both respond in positve manners and now share some of the concerns regarding wording and how there is a lot that needs to be clarified. I was pleasantly surprised at how fast they both were at responding to my questions. Neither could offer much other than the will do some research on it for me and that they can understand my concerns. I'll keep you post as I hear more.

Ike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that it's any of my business, but how many dogs do you own Ike? I have the pleasure of owning 5 (3m 2F). I agree that this is a very poorly written, vague bill, but..I also think that something needs to be done with this problem. I realize this is an issue for all breeders, coast to coast, as these laws have been brought up in many other states. We need to start some where and if I had a solution I would share it.

I have never had the DISPLEASURE of dealing with the AKC(Any Kind of Canine), and I'm very happy I don't. I deal with an older registrie geared twards ONLY hunting breeds, the FDSB.(DNA is required on certain breeds and on all CH) I believe the biggest problem with AKC is greed, more pups = more $, "new" breed = more $, loose restrictions = more $. More so I don't think AKC has a chance to correct (THEY CAUSED MOST OF THIS PROBLEM) how things are done, because of the creation of new registries (NSTRA,and NAVHDA I believe have started thier own, I'm not sure about the (labradoodle) "MUTT" type breeds) Like I said earlier I don't know of a good solution, but as long as we live in The Nanny State they will make sure we are paying for their solutions. Plus,just think of all the new jobs the Dems can say they created.(Inspectors, clerks, lawyers.....)

I like the idea of # pups or litters better, I would gladly pay a fee for the one litter I welp ever few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own 9 dogs total, they break down like this:

1- 9 yr old male not in use any more.

1-5 yr old male that is my main stud.

1- 1.5 yr old male that will be a future stud

1- 6.5 yr old female

1-3.5 yr old female

1-1.5 yr old female planned for future use

1-10 month old female planned for future use

These dogs stay with me.

I also own 2 other young females that live with freinds & relatives. These dogs have basicly been given to the people they live with except I own them on paper & have retained breeding rights. I do this in case I have a problem with or something happens to one of my main breeding dogs. This way I have quality dogs that I know very well, that I can bring in if needed. I started doing this because I lose the use of and then sold a female unexpectedly last year, so I am trying to get a good base I can draw off of, so my females are always in top shape when breeding time comes.

I try to have 2 or 3 litters a year. I have a breeding plan out for about 5 yrs of when to keep dogs from what litters for future breeding stock. We are attempting to develop our own line.

Ike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FDSB is a great registry for certain types of sporting breeds. It is not wholely recognized by the majority of the public. The people who are looking for certain breeds only registered with the FDSB understand what it is and what it stands for, the general public does not even know it exists... which is a blessing and a curse. I had a buddy register a litter of lab pups with the UKC in protest of the AKC and some glich he was having with them... he had problems selling off the pups, people were hesitant to buy a pup that wasn't AKC registered.

The average buyer's perception is that having the AKC 'tag' is an important role in choosing a qualified puppy, when in reality we know that they are nothing more than a registry to insure that only 'pure' lines are used in breeding a dog. All registrys insure that. That is why I state that we would be light years ahead with breeding compliance if the AKC stepped up and mandated minimum standards for breeding... the public's perception that this is being done is already there. WHile it is a pipe dream, it makes light years more sense than the govt. stepping in and dictating to breeders what they can and can't do and charging a fee to do so.

What is even funnier is we are going to license breeders of animals and set thresholds for living standards and health care for dogs, but we do nothing to curb some of the 'breeding' of segments of OUR society. Many children do not even get the standards of living or health care we are going to mandate for dogs and some get zero socializtion. That in itself is a great irony!

Good Luck!

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for letting the AKC have more authority. However there is at least 3 organizations that register dogs? What about the other ones? They could form a organization between them I guess.

PoleBender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This 'Puppy Mill bill" is bad news for many people. The Humane Society is using it as a first step in regulating all facets of the animal industry. This bill would hurt all of the dog sled teams in Minnesota, since most of them have intact females that race. They may not be used for breeding, but they have the potential. The fact that they are trying to mandate how much human contact an animal receives per day, as well as how much sunlight, ventilation, etc, is a bit overboard.

I believe it should be the consumer, who should research the breeders before making a buying decision. If you are buying something else for a few hundred dollars, wouldn't you research the best place to go? The consumers would then drive the unscrupulus breeders out of business. We don't need more legislation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×