This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Vom Brunhaus on 20 January 2008 - 17:01
Please go to WWW.AKC.org to find details on this bill its on homepage "Bad news for NJ breeders"
If this garbage is passed no one will be breeding puppies in New Jersey !
by D.H. on 20 January 2008 - 18:01
Lots of people will still be able to breed a lot of pups in NJ according to the info the AKC posted.
I find it far more concerning that the AKC openly has a problem with this:
AB 1591 goes far beyond encouraging responsible breeding. Under AB 1591, all breeders would be required to comply with draconian regulations including maintaining specified temperatures, keeping animals only on nonporous surfaces, and circulating air at precise levels. The measure further mandates the acceptable dimensions for crates and runs, and sets minimum socialization standards.
or
All breeders are required to furnish specified information to pet purchasers and provide a full refund for any reason for a pet returned within 14 days.
Draconian! You have got to be kidding me! That should be the very basics of good animal husbandry. And the AKC actually proclaims that it goes "far beyond responsible breeding". What a JOKE! No wonder every other state brings back a bill like this every few years. Maybe if the AKC would mandate stricter rules for their breeders and act as the Gold Stardard everyone aims to live up to, these bills would not even be necessary.
A breeder is a breeder as soon as he produces 1 pup. Not 5. What is wrong with limiting pups to no more than 25 per year? That is 3 to 6 litters. If you absolutely must produce more, lease the bitch out to the wife, kids, neighbor, Auntie Millie. Easy enough to bypass this, if you absolutely must. Kennel name can still be whatever by AKC standards, regardless of whose name is on the paper as breeder. Does anyone really need to produce a kazillion litters a year?
The only thing I personally find questionable would be:
Return for any reason within 14 days - too vague... dogs runs in front of a car, lets return it. Dog ate a pack of cigarettes and is croaking, lets return it. I have buyer's remorse, lets return it. I can see room for improvement here.
Any dog which is sold with a pedigree can be returned for a full refund within 26 months if any congenital or genetic defects are discovered.
The courts will be full with people trying to prove what was aquired since the sale and what [hidden] fault the dog came with, or not, at the time of sale. Hey, its America, as if the courts are not full enough already. Europe has a similar law actually, had it for many years now. It has not proven very helpful to the buyer who wants to accept no responsibility because in most cases you cannot prove what is genetic and what is not. Congenital defects are usually already known at the time of sale - congenital means the dog was born with it. So if it was known and was made known at the time of sale then the dog is sold as is and the law does not apply anyways. Hidden defects that are congenital and were not obvious at time of sale often bring no restitution for the buyer either. The basis of the law is to avoid deceptive/fraudulant selling practises, not things no one could possible have known. For genetic defects here is one example how the interpretation of the European law has developed - HD is not the responsibility of the breeder providing he breeds with two HD certified dogs, that is considered the best the breeder can do to prevent it, especially since there are enough environmental influences [acquired] once the pup has been sold. So this part of the new bill will only produce a lot of headaches, because it is again, too vague. And 'breeders' who sell dogs without pedigrees are home free apparently
by D.H. on 20 January 2008 - 18:01
But that is what US puppy buyers want, isn't it? This board is full of discussions supporting exactly that. So why the tears all of the sudden?
Personally I feel that a lot of dogs can benefit from stricter breeding practises in the US - better housing, minimum size for a dogs living quarters (in Germany you'd be crucified if you kept your GSD in a crate 23 hours a day as I have witnessed far too many people do in the US), minumum of socialization. Yes, terrible law to want all that.
It always seems to be very black and white, all or nothing with these bills. Maybe some of you dog people should put their heads together and come up with a draft for a bill that improves general breeding and living conditions for dogs without producing any super drastic measures for breeders, rather some that are sensible and any decent breeder would/should adhere to anyways. Minimum living and socialization standards for dogs should be the very minimum, that is not 'draconian'. For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would be opposed to having something like that being supported by a law.
by hodie on 20 January 2008 - 19:01
I agree that the proposed regulations are, for the most part, reasonable. The few provisions that are not, as DH noted, can be tweaked. And if, as the original poster and AKC intimate, there was never another pup bred in NJ, who cares? There are too many dogs being born in every state. AKC should be about responsibility, about enforcing their own code of ethics and helping make sure that dogs bred do, indeed, have reputable breeders, living conditions and the necessary life-long care each animal deserves. They fight this kind of legislation because like the breeders it is aimed at, it will cut into their bottom line and that is MONEY. Who gives a shit about the dogs.......?
Bottom line: The AKC and breeders have failed to police themselves. Even the GSDCA and the Schutzhund organizations, as an example, do not police themselves.
Frankly, when I read most of this kind of legislation I read requirements I already am meeting and am, for the most part, already required to meet. And I know others who meet such standards as well and yes, keeping a facility clean, whether a home whelping area or kennel or something else, is a lot of work. If you cannot do the work, then don't be breeding and raising dogs. The people in my state breeding litter after litter and making a lot of money doing so have few restrictions and are not inspected for the most part. Almost weekly in our area, especially in the summer, we hear of abuse and neglect cases and they are not rare.
I see and hear regularly about breeders and even boarding kennels that don't meet common sense standards of living for dogs. I know breeders and even boarding kennels in this state who consistently send home dogs with bacterial or protozoan infection. I know breeders and boarding kennels where dogs ARE in plastic crates 23 hours a day, because current regs allow that. I know some well known breeders in Canada are also reputed to do the same. And yet those people who complain about it are labeled as troublemakers. BS. While it can be difficult sometimes to filter out personal vendettas etc., the truth is that there is a lot of truth with how many dogs are kept.
I find it a good measure to require pups to be microchipped and registered to the breeder and the new owner. Maybe rescue organizations like mine would not constantly be burdened with trying to figure out where a dog came from that gets dumped.
As for the number of litter per year, in my state there are already regulations about being registered if one has so many breeding females, but no one does it and the state office that oversees this does not have enough staff to enforce it. Some breeders in our state have more than 10 breeding females, one I know of almost 20! And they produce litter after litter, sometimes two and three at a time on the ground. If one thinks money is not the object here, you are nuts.
Things should change and they will change, one way or another. I personally hope it does come to the point where all people have to register when they breed etc. I personally hope that owners are held accountable for their dogs being at large and causing other problems.
It is my opinion that only when we start at the most basic level of a problem can we hope to improve it or clear it up. For us the most basic level is at the level of the breeder. If we as dog lovers and breeders do not start being more responsible and actually supporting reasonable requirements and regulations, you can be certain that eventually real draconian measures will be instituted. Since so many people are so irresponsible to begin with when it comes to dogs, including breeders and owners, helping them along with mandated requirements is the only way to do it.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top