Originally Posted by EverythingMiley (Post 2783108)

just because your a member thats been here longer doesn't mean you have more knowledge or are always right. I agree with so many newbies on here..thankfully it hasn't happened to me But see it all the time the seniors here attacking the freshmans. I don't know how many times I've seen someone come here ask a question and then get attacked and the question NEVER gets answered. MAYBE you old dogs need to realize that us young dogs could teach you a thing or two

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 2783078)

I personally would not want to have more dogs than I could have in my home. I do not want to make my dogs into livestock. But I know there are many outdoor kennel set ups that are humane and sanitary, where they let the dogs out for daily exercise and personal time with people.

There are laws in the works that could use our support along these lines. The Illinois Chloe Bill is one of those. It limits breeders to 20 unspayed/unneutered animals. That is a doable number to realistically provide nurturing. Any more than that, I do not see how they could provide any quality time with their dogs.

On a national level, there is H.R. 6949, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act was co-sponsored by Representatives Sam Farr (D-CA), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Terry Everett (R-AL), and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) -- it got introduced late and no action taken yet. Among other things, it requires that all dogs being used in breeding be allowed out of their cage for daily exercise. It requires breeders to get a license from the USDA if they raise more than 50 dogs in a 12-month period and sell directly to the public and sets forth reasonable standards of care for commercial breeders. Enforcing those reasonable standards of care could go a long way to improving the lot of puppymill dogs. Enforcement would be crucial to make it worthwhile though.

I send out periodic emails in support of these intiatives. I basically say the same thing each time, but I figure one in a thousand emails ever really get read by the pol I am sending them to. So, I just keep on sending them.

Originally Posted by megansmomma (Post 2783092)

I don't even know where to begin with your statement that Nancy needs to back off :eek: Rachel was not informed as to what the registry she was planning on registering Sadie was really all about. From this thread she and many others have much more knowledge regarding this subject. Nancy has been very straight forward with her education to many, many YT members~including myself. She is a long standing and respected member of this community and I take GREAT offense that you feel after being here for 2 months that you are speaking for the majority? :eek: Wow.....wow......wow!

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 2783078)

I personally would not want to have more dogs than I could have in my home. I do not want to make my dogs into livestock. But I know there are many outdoor kennel set ups that are humane and sanitary, where they let the dogs out for daily exercise and personal time with people.

There are laws in the works that could use our support along these lines. The Illinois Chloe Bill is one of those. It limits breeders to 20 unspayed/unneutered animals. That is a doable number to realistically provide nurturing. Any more than that, I do not see how they could provide any quality time with their dogs.

On a national level, there is H.R. 6949, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act was co-sponsored by Representatives Sam Farr (D-CA), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Terry Everett (R-AL), and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) -- it got introduced late and no action taken yet. Among other things, it requires that all dogs being used in breeding be allowed out of their cage for daily exercise. It requires breeders to get a license from the USDA if they raise more than 50 dogs in a 12-month period and sell directly to the public and sets forth reasonable standards of care for commercial breeders. Enforcing those reasonable standards of care could go a long way to improving the lot of puppymill dogs. Enforcement would be crucial to make it worthwhile though.

I send out periodic emails in support of these intiatives. I basically say the same thing each time, but I figure one in a thousand emails ever really get read by the pol I am sending them to. So, I just keep on sending them.

Originally Posted by JPop & Taz 2 (Post 2781984)

Wow! I learn something new everyday on this site! I have 6 yorkies.....3 are APRI, 2 are AKC, and 1, yet to be registered, will be CKC. My 3 oldest are the APRI, and if I had known then what I know now, they would not be registered at all. I have to admit, when I first read Nancy's post, I was a little shocked......thinking, man, she's coming on a little strong! But, the more I read, the more I understood. I had no idea APRI supported puppy mills!:eek: I guess we live & learn, huh? :rolleyes: BTW, I appreciate all the information I get from this site. And to OP......I love your baby's name! :D

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 2783121)

I agree! It always amazes me when people use that sort of rude post to say someone else needs to back off. Bizarre.

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 2783107)

The bill only requires USDA licensing, if they raise more than 50 dogs in a 12-month period and sell directly to the public and sets forth reasonable standards of care for commercial breeders. I don't think that would apply to any "small reputable breeder." 50 puppies in a year is a LOT of puppies! I think they included the people selling more than 50 a year to the public because previous laws covered commercial breeders. To get over on that, they sell to intermediaris (brokers) and then the broker actually sells to pet stores. So, now either way -- if they are selling over 50 a year, they will have to get a license. I think that is fair.

Originally Posted by mnewco (Post 2783119)

I agree with you on most of this post except that I feel the limit should be one male and one female. There is just no way anyone has the time to spend with 50 dogs everyday at one time or another. Many people work and don't have the time to devote to more than two dogs. (JMO). I don't work and I have two dogs. I can't imagine having anymore until something happens to them in old age.

Originally Posted by YorkieShadow (Post 2783125)

I read most of this thread and this is the one post that I totally agree with.:thumbs up:

There are so many people that dont know enough or any thing about registry. not knowing the difference does not mean they support puppy mills.
for years ago I didn't not even know the difference in AKC< CKC< APRI all I knew was that it meant the dog had papers.
some times we need to explain it in stead of making the person in question / OP feel bad. For when I first read Nancy's post I knew she was only trying to explain but If I hadnt know about APRI and she had said that to me I too would felt bad.

Originally Posted by mnewco (Post 2783124)

I agree with you on most of this post except that I feel the limit should be one male and one female. There is just no way anyone has the time to spend with 50 dogs everyday at one time or another. Many people work and don't have the time to devote to more than two dogs. (JMO). I don't work and I have two dogs. I can't imagine having anymore until something happens to them in old age.

Originally Posted by megansmomma (Post 2783092)

I don't even know where to begin with your statement that Nancy needs to back off :eek: Rachel was not informed as to what the registry she was planning on registering Sadie was really all about. From this thread she and many others have much more knowledge regarding this subject. Nancy has been very straight forward with her education to many, many YT members~including myself. She is a long standing and respected member of this community and I take GREAT offense that you feel after being here for 2 months that you are speaking for the majority? :eek: Wow.....wow......wow!

Originally Posted by Mardelin (Post 2783098)

:thumbup::thumbup:

I agree with you 100%. I too take great offense when a well respected YT member who does nothing but educate, is chastised by a new member.....The Forum seems to have had a lot of that lately...

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 2783128)

The first line of my post says I personally would not want more dogs than I could have inmy home. I never said I would ever have 50 dogs or think that is right. This is just legislation that says that if anyone sells 50 dogs a year, they would have to have a USDA license. It is not about having 50 breeding dogs. Anyone with that many needs plenty of employees to help.

One male and one female per breeder is not realistically going to make it into law. I have 4 dogs and can handle that just fine. I have no problem giving them all the attention they need -- even my puppy, Rocky, the little attention hog! If you want to do any good in changing laws you have to pick a realistic solution -- something people will actually vote for and get passed. Trying to limit everyone to no more than 2 dogs is ludicrous and has NO chance of being passed. So, then you are back to having no law at all.

Originally Posted by mjharpst (Post 2783136)

Originally Posted by ladyjane (Post 2783112)

I personally think some of the young dogs need to take the cotton out of their ears and put it in their mouths.

Originally Posted by mnewco (Post 2783139)

However, if a breeder has no more than 2 for breeding, there will be a lot less unwanted dogs in this world and a lot less being taken to shelters only to be killed. The same goes for cats. I breed Sphyx once every 2 years and I only have two. One male and one female. That is plenty every 2 years so that the population can be controlled.

As far as legislation goes, the people don't usually get to vote on laws. It is up the states.