|
|
MICHIGAN BREEDER BILL 6395 (14 replies)
|
|
Yesterday, Representative Bill Caul of Mt. Pleasant introduced Michigan House Bill 6395, which proposes to strictly regulate virtually all responsible dog breeders. It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog breeders in Michigan contact the members of the House Agriculture Committee, which currently has cognizance of the bill, and their elected Representatives and express their vehement opposition to this bill.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support 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.
If adopted, HB 6395 would:
- Define anyone who sells or offers for sale more than two dogs per year, or more than one litter of dogs per year, as a "pet seller."
- Mandate that those who qualify as pet sellers to acquire an annual pet seller license from their county animal control shelter at a cost of $200/year.
- Require an applicant for a pet seller license to submit his or her fingerprints with a license application for a criminal history and FBI background check.
- Give discretion to county animal control shelters to deny applications for pet seller licenses, regardless of outcome of background investigation.
- Call for pet sellers to comply with administrative rules regarding housing that will be financially detrimental to responsible breeders who operate out of their homes.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Michigan residents should contact the members of the House Agriculture Committee listed below and their elected Representatives and express their strong opposition to this onerous legislation. |
|
|
|
|
| People tend to be lazy, even when their self-interest is involved. It might be helpful, therefore, if you would post actual provisions of the legislation to be read, rather than someone's synopsis (which may or may not be accurate). |
|
|
|
|
googling this, there is a news post on the akc site,
another on a sportsman's forum and another which indicates that it's a liquir control bill, both it and this
seem to be quoting the akc site's entry...
so either the akc messed up(can you believe it?!), or the mi gov site is messed up(also completely possible!).
so chances are protesting 6395 might not have the desired effect!
either way, the dogs will still copulate, care free!
|
|
|
|
|
MYSTERE
This was actually found on the AKC site while I was updating my litter information there. It was not my own synopsis and I am far from a lazy person. Learn a little about the person/situation before you make ridiculous assumptions. I will ignore your uninformed comment.
Have a great one
Shannan :) |
|
|
|
|
Good.
Maybe it will get rid of some breeders.
"Oh my gosh. I am going to have to pay $200 dollars a year if I have more than 1 litter. This is going to seriously cut into my profit!"
The only thing I find rediculous is the FBI background check. I don't believe you have to do the same to sell a car, so why with a dog? |
|
|
|
|
I don't have a problem with the fee, or the license. I breed once a year and even if I bred more litters I still wouldn't have a problem. However I do not agree with the fingerprinting, criminal history and FBI background check deal. I think its a tad "stretched". And further more "what profit?" I sure don't profit. I barely break even.
Take Care
Shannan :) |
|
|
|
|
In PA, one does have to pass a background check to be licensed to sell cars. They bag a lot of fugitives that way. Instead of a license delivered to the applicant's place of employment, law enforcement shows up with hand cuffs. I have no problem with that, as long as a few parking tickets, some minor infractions/charges from way back when or something (since settled) don't keep somebody from getting a job.
SS |
|
|
|
|
It's not the fee or the FBI background check that concerns me. Annoying, but in the grand scheme of things no big deal. But also not going to do anything to discourage bad breeding.
My concern, having read the proposed bill in it's entirety, is that it stipulates that county animal control is responsible for approving/denying applications. But no where in the bill are their guidelines or stipulations that determine on what grounds the county can deny an application. It even says they can deny an application even if the person passes the background check and pays the fee.
That would seem to indicate it is up to the county animal control if they want to deny or approve, and there are no rules binding them. County AC employee doesn't like your breed of dog? DENIED! Is a closet PETA supporter and doesn't think anyone should breed dogs? DENIED!
Those are major issues with this bill. Not to mention, it's been proven time and time again that once government gets involved in this sort of thing, the BSL and mandatory spay/neuter bills won't take long to follow. |
|
|
|
|
Without getting into the "windfall" here, that is Exactly where I was going with this. THANK YOU WILDHAUS. I figured after the first couple posts it wasn't worth my time voicing my concerns with this. I have already had my county concerned with my "dangerous" dogs and now the possibility of them being able to tell me I can or cannot breed them? Come on. I still dont like the infringement of the background checks either. Looking for what?
Shannan :) |
|
|
|
|
Folks, the real issue is the US Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. This law will try to legislate the right for petty twisted bureaucrats to be arbitrary and capricious towards what should be a public right. This is what has produced payoffs to officials in past years and breeds corruption in gov't. Better to just enforce laws regulating kennel conditions and appropriate care, shelter and feeding for dogs. This is just part of the NWO incrementalism. |
|
|
|
|
Shannon,
Please do not be so defensive. I did not say, intimate or imply that you were lazy. I was referring t to the people you presumably want to alert to the bill for action and to the fact that a lot of people won't bother to go read the bill themselves, unless it is handed to them-- they want to be spoon-fed . Fortunately, someone has posted the link, so everyone can read it for themselves, as some here obviously have. 
I would agree with Chris that the major problem is the lack of guidlines for approving or denying licenses. I would suspect that the background check is "supposed" to address breeders who intend to breed for the purpose of fighting. NO idea how effective that would be, as I suspect that anyone breeding dogs for the fight ring is not bothering with licenses anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Mystere...
Sorry about that defensivness. As a "newbie" here I was chewed up and spit out a good many times without good cause and now I rarely post at all. I am not into the bashing and ripping apart of people without good reason. Not enough coffee this morning... 
Have a great one
Shannan :) |
|
|
|
|
Have a Great Weekend, Shannan! It is unfortunate that you received an ugly reception as a newbie. Frankly, newbie questions help us all to learn. JMHO
Take Care!! |
|
|
|
|
I"ve learned to have thicker skin. This can be a very fun, informative place. I have learned a lot.
Have a great weekend!!
Shannan :) |
|
|
You need to be a registered user to post messages
Login
-
Register
Classified: Show male for sale
|
|
|
|
|
Search Website
Login
Messagelist
Post Reply