[Nikki+2]

I pretty much understand why some pet owners are against mandatory spay/neuter but I'm always a little confused by breeders who are against it. The bills I have read provide for breeders to have a license or permit to breed. Breeding takes a lot of education to do in a safe and responsible manner and seems like something that should require a license. For example, I am a licensed esthetician. I would find it insulting to the time I put into my education if my state decided anybody, regardless of training or knowledge could be an esthetician. Some places require a license just to groom a dog.

IMO, a great solution would be if you choose to not spay/neuter your pet, or you are a breeder, you must have a license that would show you have passed training and/or testing to prove you have adequate knowledge to breed in a safe, responsible manner. The bills usually have wording already to allow you to opt out of spay/neuter if a vet certifies it would not be in the best interest for your pet's health. If a license was required then people who breed ethically would continue to be able to do so and pet owners who do not want to spay/neuter would be better prepared for an oops litter (which we all know happens a lot). Now I understand that this is not how the bills are typically written but would y'all be against a bill like that?

I've learned a lot from this forum about how much work it takes to be an ethical breeder and I think those breeders should be recognized as someone who has invested time into their education and not just someone who has a male and female dog. I know this wouldn't solve every problem but it seems like something like that would be a giant step toward weeding out all of the horrible breeders that we all hear about who are only in it for the $$$, have no idea what they are doing and are producing sick puppies.