It is sad but this is the very thing that has stopped so many anti puppy mill laws from being effective.
I am all for the betterment of any breed but the AKC needs to understand that there are other animals out there that need to be protected. When you get right down to it they are concerned about their kennel owners. This law is about tethering and crating but I assume they want language in there that exempts kennel owners from being effected. As I stated before they need to become more interested in the start of a bill instead of waiting until it is all written. There are representatives that they should be in contact within the various states ahead of time! They could be an effective means of stopping puppy mills!

Purebred dogs are wonderful. I love them and want the best for them but there are many other animals that have no one to speak for them. If the AKC wants to do something they should get in front and lead in protecting all dogs. We are not able to stop puppy mills or the self centered animal neglect people by just talking about it. They are not going to stop because we said mean things about them. Unfortunately, the sad fact is that it has come to the point that we need laws to stop abuse. I am against government regulation in most cases but when the welfare of humans or animals are in jeopardy then action needs to be taken.

I have heard more than one shelter or rescue organization tell me that the AKC & well-heeled, influential movers & shakers in the dog fancy always stop legislation that would make a dent on puppy mills for fear it will affect them some way, using the slippery-slope argument. But I really think that true legislative intent would be considered if ever respectable, truly reputable breeders, who are humane & kind to their dogs, were being harrassed by some beurocrat from an oversight agency for keeping their Malamutes outside too long during play, training & exercise for an event. That breeder's state or even U. S. senator could step in there. I've used both when I needed to do so. But we have got to start getting some laws in place that hit puppy-millers hard. We have to start somewhere. I tend to disagree with AKC on this one but my mind is still open.

They can't have it both ways. They are against puppy mills but they are more afraid to let the legislation through that would stop these pig pens. I can understand being concerned about some language in the bill that they may feel is not accurate enough to protect them but there are ways of dealing with that. It's just wrong to put the welfare of dogs trapped in puppy mills and other inhumane situations beneath their concern for their kennels. The bills are not aimed at clean well run kennels; they are aimed at suffering animals. If their kennels are legal and humane then why stop the state from helping other animals? Do they really think the police are going to bust an AKC conformation or agility show? Or are they concerned about having their kennel inspected? We can't afford the upkeep of the high kill shelters run by the state and local governments! That is why thousands of animals are killed daily! It's one thing to pass some paper legislation but it is a whole other thing to get it enforced.

Couldn't agree more. It has to start somewhere & no nascent bill is ever perfect. That's why all the subsequent additions, amendments, revisions, recensions, exceptions - why they get so long!

I do agree that the AKC, the CKC, and the FCI, needs to get ahead of the curve. Also they need and were/perhaps even are, in a prime position to represent the welfare of "all dogs", be they purebred or not.

How-ever they need to attract the non purebred pet owner, as members of their respective organizations. It appears that even with purebred pet owners, many do not register their pups with the AKC, I don't know about FCI, but I do know that every purebred dog that is bred by a CKC breeder is registered with CKC. It is here in Canada the breeder's responsibility to effect the change of ownership papers when they sell the puppy. And the breeders are Not allowed to charge more for this paperwork either.

So their dilemma is how to attract the non purebred pet owner? What would attract these owners to register, to be active in the organization. How to balance the needs of the purebred owners/exhibitors/breeders with the potential non purebred pet owner? Here I am speaking of the many health clinics run by AKC, their breeders program, and they are at least in performance events will need to run purebred obedience and non purebred obedience events, ditto rally, agility, etc. There are a finite number of resources both $ and people wise, who can volunteer their time to these functions.

Some legislation with teeth to get puppymillers or other irresponsible owners who keep their dogs in cages like lab rats all or a major portion of their lives or those who tether or leave their dog outside 24/7 for years is badly needed. States have got to start to get a handle on dog cruelty & neglect.

I don't know much about the other organizations that register dogs but I do know that there are many rescues and animal welfare organizations that have a great interest in taking down the puppy mills and others who abuse animals. I do agree that people working together on this is necessary. AKC is in a position to lead at this but so far I have seen nothing but interference. The question is: Are they capable of setting aside their internal politics to work for the good of a cause that effects only some of their members? Puppy mills are majoring on the small dogs that are so in demand right now. They do produce some larger breed dogs but the big money is in the little ones therefore they are not a threat to many of those in the AKC who breed the larger dogs.

I am beginning to think they won't do anything that makes their bigtime breeders/handlers very unhappy or inconvenienced. And I don't see them taking any steps toward change in breeding dogs that clearly have health issues from current preferences in appearance/conformation, such as the Bulldog.

This bill was signed into law.