Francesca Knowles wrote: I'd like to point out that the "Federal Gov't" is the Very Same Government that runs our highly regarded Military...
Not everything the Feds do in our names, at our direction, and with our consent is wrong.
I totally agree with this statement in that we have the best military on the planet and I am proud of what they do. We also have the most expensive military on the planet. I would remind you that this is the same govt that is supposed to secure our borders and stop the flow of illegal drugs in our society. Do we want them in the pet business too?
Regardless of what we "want," the federal government is already in the pet business, because they license the breeders, aka puppy mills. And short of states creating major hassles for pet owners wanting to bring their own dogs into the state, the the federal government is really the only entity that can regulate interstate sales effectively.
How effective it will be remains to be seen. A lot of times stuff like this is not enforced, rather when an issue comes to the attention of the authorities, it provides another way to go after the offender.
susan
Fuzzy Wuzzy was a wabbit, Fuzzy Wuzzy had a dandelion habit! RIP little Wuz... don't go far.
Francesca Knowles wrote: I'd like to point out that the "Federal Gov't" is the Very Same Government that runs our highly regarded Military...
Not everything the Feds do in our names, at our direction, and with our consent is wrong.
I totally agree with this statement in that we have the best military on the planet and I am proud of what they do. We also have the most expensive military on the planet. I would remind you that this is the same govt that is supposed to secure our borders and stop the flow of illegal drugs in our society. Do we want them in the pet business too?
Call me an oddball, but I ascribe to the belief that "the Government" is US, not "them", so perhaps I'm biased...
But whoever "it" is, it's the same Government that pays lots of its citizens monthly checks just because they're old, has preserved us from war on our own soil for more than 150 years, provides us with a legal system under which we can seek redress for our grievances, protects our rights to free speech, movement, and security in our own homes, and on and on.
It also accepts without question the results of the Constitutionally guaranteed Free Elections that so few of us bother to engage in.
We do get what we vote for, you know.
To sum up, I'd have to say that yes, I trust the Feds to implement a law like the one under discussion here, and even to enforce it if given the resources to do so.
" Not every mind that wanders is lost. " With apologies toJ.R.R. Tolkien
I don't see any way they can enforce this. Puppy Mills have existed for as long as I can remember. Most breed the dogs under horrific conditions and new ones pop up as fast as old ones are closed down. There is no punishment for the owners. At best a small fine. There are no consequences for the suffering they cause and the people who are cheated by buying these 4th rate genetically inferior poorly raised flea and worm ridden puppies.
There aren't enough inspectors and many of those tend to look the other way rather than make sure places are closed down. It can be months before inspectors get back to a horror-house for dogs. Then they give another warning rather than take action, and it's months before they're back again. This can go on for years as hundreds of their inferior pups are sent all over the country.
There was a really enlightening show on TV about puppy mills a few years back. Educating the public is hopeless. There doesn't seem to be any way to get though to people. It's like trying to get people to spay and neuter.
Puppy mills have existed for ages and have been exposed just as long, and yet people will buy from these so-called "breeders".
There's a large flea market in FL where we spend the winter. We go every week when we're down there. A woman there sells these wretched Puppy Mill puppies by the score to retired people. How is it they're almost all seniors and they still insist on buying these sickly puppies? It's hard to believe they never heard of puppy mills.
DOTLDaddy wrote: It is certainly way overdue for such a change to the law.
The thing that strikes me as rather odd is the fact that, apparently, there are people that would purchase a puppy "sight unseen" over the internet in the first place.
They also purchase them sickly at pet shops and flea markets. I don't believe the average person can tell a sickly puppy when they see one. The pup is cute and they can afford the price so they buy it, never giving a thought to how it was bred and raised. Will it develop hip dysplasia or slipped stiffles or blindness or seizures - it never crosses their minds. And that's what these cruel greedy breeders depend on. The person buys a puppy and then, weeks or months later, heartache and vet bills begin.
It happens with purebred cats also. I was talking to a man in my vet's waiting room a few months back who bought a Sphinx hairless cat over the internet. He was unable to find a local breeder. The kitten arrived with a serious URI and they couldn't seem to get her past it. He said his vet bill would soon equal what he paid for the kitten.
* This post was
edited 05/14/12 05:41pm by WandaLust2 *
To sum up, I'd have to say that yes, I trust the Feds to implement a law like the one under discussion here, and even to enforce it if given the resources to do so.
I can almost guarantee you they wont have the resources to enforce it. They don't even enforce the laws they have now where animals are concerned.
WyoTraveler wrote: The shelters are just running a puppy business their selves on the backs of dogs that need homes.
This is not true of all shelters so please don't give them all bad names. What you're talking about is most likely RESCUES or private shelters. Our county shelter just requests a note from your landlord if any, or proof you own your own home. What's wrong with that? They had too many cats and dogs returned because a landlord refused to let the person keep the pet. It makes a lot of extra paperwork for them and also, some of those people would just dump the cat or dog along the road rather than return it to the Co. shelter.
The hardest thing about living in a world with other people is that you don't own their property (even if their property is alive) and its still theirs when they mistreat it. Even in front of you.
I think if you're going to regulate animal treatment and breeding, you should up and regulate *animal treatment and breeding* - be done with this species-specific malarky.
There is a little discussed (by the media) section in the rule change.
Quote: In addition to retail pet stores, the proposed rule would exempt from regulation anyone
who sells or negotiates the sale or purchase of any animal, except wild or exotic animals, dogs,
or cats, and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of such animals.
If I am reading the changes correctly anyone who grosses >$500 from the sale of dogs would need a license, meaning every breeder will likely require a license.
* This post was
last
edited 05/17/12 12:09pm by BCSnob *
View edit history
If I am reading the changes correctly anyone who grosses >$500 from the sale of dogs would need a license, meaning every breeder will likely require a license.
I suspect a lot of people under-report their income from the sale of dogs ;-) but when breeders have a big fancy website with 20 or more dogs for sale, it's pretty hard to deny how much they earn from the sale of dogs. To me, however, $500 seems way too low - should be more like $3,000 to 5,000. The person breeding one litter a year should NOT be penalized; 6 puppies at $500 each is 3 grand right there.
Of the few people that I have known who are breeder-handlers of show dogs, they all claim that they net negative or barely break even on breeding. There is a lot of overhead involved for someone who is only breeding for a couple of litters a year. It is definitely something that they do more for the love of it, and to maintain and improve breed quality than to make a profit.
Offline
