Colorado breeders please read!!!!!

[yorkiekist]

Subject: Re: COAnti Breeder Bill Hearing WED - Please CROSSPOST! the following email relates to an upcoming anti-breeding bill that HSUS is trying to get passed in Colorado. At this time, the Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs is requesting that all Colorado residents follow the link in the email to get the contact information on your local representative so that you can contact them. If you know of any Colorado residents not on either of these two yahoo groups, please forward to them so that we can get the word out and fight against this bill. lynn godbeeclyde, tx ----- Forwarded Message ----From: Suzie <HawkwindSams@ cs.com>To: Legal_Samoyed@ yahoogroups. comSent: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 CO: Anti Breeding bill hearing THIS WED***ALERT* ** HSUS is trying to pass what they call a 'PuppyMill' bill in Colorado, but it is actually an anti-breeding bill. The first hearing for this bill is this Wednesday. We want to KILL it in that committee and send HSUS packing! It is the same bill being introduced around the country. The bill would limit breeders to no more than 25 intact dogs, require special veterinary certification for breeding dogs yearly, and allow inspectors access 24/7 to homes or facilities that are licensed. NOTHING in this bill will improve upon the existing PACFA laws for licensing of facilities already in place in Colorado for the past 14 years. It is a darn good law and has been very effective. The Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs has been preparing to fight this bill since December when we found out it was being introduced. Colorado residents, please go to the NAIATrust CapWiz link at http://capwiz. com/naiatrust/ issues/alert/ ?alertid=12566421& type=ST&show_ alert=1 to send a letter to your representatives opposing this bill. We need residents only at this time to write so the representatives get the message their voters do not like this bill. Later, if the bill goes further we will need a massive mailing from everyone. Thanks!! Linda Hart Secretary Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs Jarilyn

[yorkiekist]

Subject: HB1172 Defeated Good news for Colorado at least for now.... Colorado sent the HSUS packing! According to the Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs Colorado HB 1172 is officially dead in committee. The hearing lasted 5 hours, it started with 4 representatives against it and ended with 9 against, three for and one absent.

[livingdustmops]

As you read these links no one should be proud that this bill was defeated as more dogs will die because of this. When will people stand up for any animal that has to die because of the almighty dollar. One dog should not die and I am so very weary of the money (lobbyists) that will look out for the interest of the breeders over the animals that cannot protect themselves.

Video

Krabloonik violates state regs | Aspen Daily News Online

Email Template

Pet Regulations, Jerry Kopel

Dog Laws At Large: Colorado

Jerry Kopel
Pet Regulations
By Jerry Kopel
Dec. 6, 2008

"Pets ..." admits the Dept. of Regulatory Agencies (DORA), "are like family" to an overwhelming majority of households in Colorado and nationally.

So a Sunset review in 2008 of the licensing law, Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act (PACFA) revealed a very good law, but with few inspectors and a desperately inefficient small backup system under the Dept. of Agriculture.

That system could be overwhelmed without a deeper dig into general revenue funds paid from fees from more than 2,000 present licensees (1,818 as of July 1, 2007), in 14 categories ranging from retail dealers to cat breeders.

DORA reports "the pet industry is very stable and largely unaffected by downturns in the economy ... continued industry growth at approximately five percent ... (is) expected ... (and) pet owners will pay for services at an increasing level".

PACFA is cash funded by license fees. Because of revenue and spending restrictions by Colorado law, fees were lowered in 2008 and projections are that, without a change in spending authority, they may be lowered again.

Along with recommending continuing the PACFA program, the second most important recommendation was to increase spending authority. DORA states:
"Protecting Colorado's multi-million dollar pet industry from bad actors benefits the state's economy generally and its citizens tangentially".

"Since the regulated community and the general public want to see more inspections and increased action, it seems illogical to continually lower fees, rather than using resources to upgrade technology. This is particularly so, since there appears to be ... correlation between lowered fees and LESS public protection."
There are at present only three inspectors following up complaints. The state is divided into three sectors over Colorado's 104,1000 square miles. There is an average of over 800 annual inspections finding more than 1,000 inspection-based violations.
" ... even if there was another inspector on staff, the current disorganized record system would not handle the increase in inspections and actions without exponentially increasing the record keeping/technology problems."
In other words, more spent for pet protection is better, and politically acceptable, even desirable among Colorado licensees and pet owners if spent first in bringing the staff backup system into the 21st century.

DORA surveyed 227 licensees in June of 2008. Here are the results:

PACFA has raised the standards: 140 agree, 36 disagree. PACFA inspections are necessary: 180 agree, 13 disagree. PACFA inspectors are effective in explaining expectations: 143 agree, 25 disagree.

DORA found the present backup system is a mess, everything is at "a separate entry into an electronic filing cabinet". (This is a failure from the previous administration, but it is now on the shoulders of the present governor.)

While a hiring freeze would not be affected, DORA's concept is to stop accumulating five or more separate pet information data bases (new ones conflicting with previous information still in the files) instead of an integrated system. In DORA's words:
"The information recording methods are an inefficient use of time, space and labor. The licensee hard copy files are too large, unorganized and cumbersome to be useful to the staff, or any person who wishes to examine them. PACFA ... is in desperate need of a technology overhaul".
Another important issue is the lack of unimpeded access to all properties and records pertaining to PACFA. CRS 38-80-110 (3) states:
"At any reasonable time during regular business hours, the commissioner (of agriculture) shall have free and unimpeded access upon consent or upon obtaining an administrative search warrant ... to facilities and records".
DORA's position" "The majority of licensed facilities care for pet animals 24 hours per day seven days per week. Considering that animals could possibly be in danger at any time they are in a non-compliant facility, what, or who, determines what a reasonable time is to inspect a facility?
"Therefore, staff must have unlimited access to fulfill its mission, keeping pet animals safe. If a licensee chooses to operate a home-based facility it must be subject to the same regulatory oversight as those businesses that operate in other conditions.

" ... the Commissioner should have the authority to scrutinize any property or records of a licensee at any time".

"This Sunset review contains recommendations for systemic upgrades that, if adopted by the General Assembly and implemented by staff, will increase efficiency and accountability measures (and we) ... recommend the next Sunset review ... take place in five years to more quickly measure the impact of the changes."
(Jerry Kopel served 22 years in the Colorado House ands was chief sponsor of the Sunset law.)

[yorkiekist]

I dont think that MY rights as a breeder/exhibitor should be taken away, altered, inspected by people with an agenda or legislated up the ying-yang because of OTHER PEOPLES IRRESPONSIBILITIES! For the most part, the rsponsible exhibitor breeder/hobby breeder is NOT the cause of this over-whelming problem. Why is it that we hobby/exhibitor breeders always get dragged into it? Why is it that the pet stores and puppy mills NEVER seem to be effected by these stupid bills? There is even a bill being introduced in Illinoise that will require breeders to be finger-printed. What a CROCK!! Like we are criminals if we dare to breed a litter.
I really feel sorry for all the animals that nobody wants, I really do. But after YEARS of feeling sorry, trying to educate the stupid public and making donations every month to rescues with no results, you kind of start feeling that its "not my problem" anymore. Sorry if its sounds harsh, but it is what it is.

[livingdustmops]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

I dont think that MY rights as a breeder/exhibitor should be taken away, altered, inspected by people with an agenda or legislated up the ying-yang because of OTHER PEOPLES IRRESPONSIBILITIES! For the most part, the rsponsible exhibitor breeder/hobby breeder is NOT the cause of this over-whelming problem. Why is it that we hobby/exhibitor breeders always get dragged into it? Why is it that the pet stores and puppy mills NEVER seem to be effected by these stupid bills? There is even a bill being introduced in Illinoise that will require breeders to be finger-printed. What a CROCK!! Like we are criminals if we dare to breed a litter.
I really feel sorry for all the animals that nobody wants, I really do. But after YEARS of feeling sorry, trying to educate the stupid public and making donations every month to rescues with no results, you kind of start feeling that its "not my problem" anymore. Sorry if its sounds harsh, but it is what it is.

Until breeders stop using our tax dollars to take care of their surplus then it is all of our problem. I did Yorkie rescue in Arizona for many years and it made me sick to see so many of these dogs being thrown away. One weekend alone I had 17 Yorkies at my house trying to find new homes for them. Some of these rescues came in with AKC papers and some were BYB's and a couple were from show breeders. There were times we could not pull them out of the pounds fast enough in Tucson and Phoenix so more died. I am sorry but I cannot turn a blind eye to this issue like you apparently have "not my problem" as long as you are going to promote protecting the breeders rights at all cost.

I am not against reputable/responsible breeders but when I read this bill I could not see where a reputable breeder would be opposed to what they are trying to do. Does anyone really need more than 25 intact animals to be a exhibitor breeder/hobby breeder? What is wrong requiring special veterinary certification for breeding dogs yearly, or allowing inspectors access 24/7 to homes or facilities that are licensed? As long as many breeder are not going to be responsible for the rehoming/euthanizing of their surplus dogs and the american public is, then I don't have a problem having these requirements.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

Until breeders stop using our tax dollars to take care of their surplus then it is all of our problem. I did Yorkie rescue in Arizona for many years and it made me sick to see so many of these dogs being thrown away. One weekend alone I had 17 Yorkies at my house trying to find new homes for them. Some of these rescues came in with AKC papers and some were BYB's and a couple were from show breeders. There were times we could not pull them out of the pounds fast enough in Tucson and Phoenix so more died. I am sorry but I cannot turn a blind eye to this issue like you apparently have "not my problem" as long as you are going to promote protecting the breeders rights at all cost.

I am not against reputable/responsible breeders but when I read this bill I could not see where a reputable breeder would be opposed to what they are trying to do. Does anyone really need more than 25 intact animals to be a exhibitor breeder/hobby breeder? What is wrong requiring special veterinary certification for breeding dogs yearly, or allowing inspectors access 24/7 to homes or facilities that are licensed? As long as many breeder are not going to be responsible for the rehoming/euthanizing of their surplus dogs and the american public is, then I don't have a problem having these requirements.

It looks like the laws that are already passed is a great one. Why "improve" it?

Whats wrong with unannounced inspections 24/7???????
Sounds like the German Gustaopo(sp) to me. Like I want someone banging on my door at 3 am. That is what it is coming to reguarding our rights in this country. We already get inspected by AKC and they do a good job. Animal control does its job. Why do we need MORE of this harrassment??? Inch by inch our rights are being taken away from us by the likes of H$U$ and Peta. I have taken in strays and kept them until I could either place them or they died of old age at my house. One was a blind poodle that was walking down my street. I am un-indated with stray cats that people dump. At one time I was feeding over 30 cats. One by one I have had them all spayed/neutered at my cost as I am sick to death of finding batches of kittens in my yard. And, yes, I have had to hand feed numerous day old kittens when the mommies abandoned them. And all of these cats are feral. I just wish the coyotes would get them instead of my chickens.
So I am VERY aware of the pet problem, which still is not MY problem. My dogs do not end up in the pound and reproduce thousands of unwanted puppies. I have a return policy, spay/neuter policy in my contract and now I am going to start spaying/neutering the puppies myself before they are sold. My dogs are vet checked so I dont think that making it a requirement by law is going to help the situation either. And what about handlers that can easily have more than 30 intact dogs at their homes? So is a 4 month old puppy and intact dog? 25 intact dogs would be easy to have if you have a breed with large litters. That would only be 2 litters + the parents and other show dogs. What if you were deciding which ones you were going to show and which ones were going as pets? 4 months of age is usually when I start really evaluating this.
I could go on and on, but I am sure you get my drift. I understand where you are coming from also. Its definately a huge problem but nothing is going to work including legislation. I think more emphasis should be put on shutting down the mills first, then the bybers. But the states dont want to loose all the $$$$$$$$$$$$$ the big pet stores bring in.