Akc

[pinkpatty]

Found this interesting.NDY GALLI
July 14, 2012



The American Kennel Club is facing scathing criticism from a determined group of Girl Scouts who claim the world's largest purebred dog registry, which bills itself as "The Dog's Champion," isn't protecting their four-legged friends at all.
The girls of Troop 6811 from Sandy Spring, Maryland are demanding that the AKC change its position on a proposed change to the federal Animal Welfare Act that would make breeders who sell dogs over the internet subject to regular health and safety inspections by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
"(AKC) has a lot of power and we are concerned about what they are saying," said 12 year-old Romina Poblete, a member of Troop 6811.
The proposed rule, which will take effect after a "public comment" period that ends Monday, would apply to all breeders with five or more breeding females. Currently, large-scale dog breeders are inspected by the USDA but pet stores are not. When online puppy purchasing became popular, internet dog breeders classified themselves as "pet stores," thus falling outside USDA's reach.
The AKC has been opposed to the rule change, telling ABC News the rule will affect many smaller "hobby breeders." "The AKC believes it is neither the intent of the Animal Welfare Act nor USDA to place such an unfair burden on small, hobby breeders," it said in a statement.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/..._120713_wg.jpg
Courtesy Troop 6811
Girl Scouts from Troop 6811 of Sandy Spring,... View Full Size


http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/..._120713_wg.jpgCourtesy Troop 6811
Girl Scouts from Troop 6811 of Sandy Spring, Maryland celebrate after meeting with a high-ranking official of the Agriculture Department.






But the 11 and 12-year olds are unconvinced and have taken on the AKC in their mission to champion the welfare of dogs. The girls are concerned that conditions at uninspected on-line sellers could become like those at "puppy mills," the large-scale breeding facilities often criticized for allegedly inhumane conditions.
"We want to see the rule change happen so we can see that all puppy mill dogs are protected, including the ones sold over the internet," said Tessa Kanstoroom, 12.
"We want breeders, internet or otherwise, to be held accountable for their responsibilities. It's pretty straightforward. If you are keeping dogs, take care of them," added 11-year old Mary Fran Papalia.
Troop 6811 sent a 4-page letter to the AKC, asking why it is taking the position it has. "We don't understand why the rules should be different for some people, especially if they are making money by selling dogs, who keep so much of the money that their dogs are suffering," the letter states. "This seems greedy and wrong to us and we hope it does to you too."
The letter concluded with six questions addressed to the AKC, including how it planned to conduct inspections of breeders itself, something the AKC has suggested in lieu of USDA inspections.
"We checked with the USDA and confirmed that your group has no power to enforce the law – so we don't understand how your group could replace the government inspectors," the letter states.
But the AKC didn't answer the questions, instead responding: "Thank you for your well-written and thoughtful letter with your concerns regarding the Animal Welfare Act rule change. We appreciate that you have taken the time to share your thoughts with us."
"I wanted them to think about our letter and hopefully change their mind about protecting puppy mill dogs," Michele Carter, 11, told ABC News.

Why would the AKC be against inspections?

[gemy]

http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/ani...egulation.html

This thread was posted some time ago. If you review the thread you will find links provided, that provide some commentary to the issues at hand.

It is easy to look at any issue from just one point of view. Indeed as human beings it is truly hard to look at anything, from multiple points of view.

Nobody in their right minds wants to support "puppy mills" and most folks would agree they don't want to support bad breeders period. How does one reasonably go about trying to stop both? The key is how to do this, without putting out of business those, small passionate commited breeders? These folks are the cornerstone of prime protection for the purebred dog.

Then with this new "regulation" there are other practical matters to consider. Enforcement for example; how much will it cost, can it practically be administered? Who will pay for those costs?

What I have observed is that slowly and surely, state by state, province by province; the "rights" of an individual to own, to breed, to have pets is being eroded by sometimes "misguided legislation" and sometimes by legislation that is not misguided at all, but is a direct result of the pressures being brought to bear by groups whose agenda is quite different than the "normal pet owner;s".

Pet owners are Not organized, nor does the general population as yet "see" the need to get organized. We merrily go on our way, thinking the "right" to own and house a pet will be ours forever more. If animal rights activists get their way, that right will be taken away for good!

[jencar98]

I commend the Girl Scouts for their attempts. Although I don't believe the legislation would protect dogs in many breeding programs. The USDA is the entity entrusted to inspect dog kennels and have failed miserably at their job. The agency will never be funded enough to inspect kennels or breeders on a routine basis, so the unscrupulous breeders will still get away with their disgusting practices. With our government's budget completely out of control, any legislator would be foolish (re-election nightmare)to recommend extreme funding increases for the USDA.

To answer the question: Why would the AKC be against inspections?

The AKC wants no legislation passed that would hinder a breeder from breeding and registering with AKC. Unfortunately as with most all things, it's about money. Breeders don't want laws that would interfere with their lucrative business and AKC needs the breeder's fees to stay profitable.

Sadly, AKC knows the USDA will never be capable of adequately inspecting facilities but they have to be opposed to new legislation to appease the breeders.

In my perfect world, breeders develop good breeding ethics and would not need government oversight

[gracielove]

I have to go with the Girl Scouts here as well. The AKC has done nothing but oppose all proposed regulation of puppy mills. Even rules such as tethering of animals for long periods of time have been opposed by the AKC.
I understand that over regulation can be a problem but as yet what has AKC contributed in the way of helping to put together legislation that would put puppy mills out of business but also protect the "small" hobby breeder? If their true concern is for the hobby breeder then why don't they get involved in helping to craft legislation that will do both? As of this moment they have only moved to obstruct and done nothing to pitch in and help. Laws have to be constructed to stop abusive breeding practices and to protect animals from the many heartless pet owners that care nothing about the dog tied to a post in the back yard.
Go Girl Scouts! Maybe you can also convince AKC that they have a responsibility to protect all animals and not just their kennel owners. Many of the AKC breeders are far from small hobby breeders. It is their business and it comes down to dollars and cents here.

[Yorkiemom1]

[QUOTE=jencar98;3972677]I commend the Girl Scouts for their attempts. Although I don't believe the legislation would protect dogs in many breeding programs. The USDA is the entity entrusted to inspect dog kennels and have failed miserably at their job. The agency will never be funded enough to inspect kennels or breeders on a routine basis, so the unscrupulous breeders will still get away with their disgusting practices. With our government's budget completely out of control, any legislator would be foolish (re-election nightmare)to recommend extreme funding increases for the USDA.

To answer the question: Why would the AKC be against inspections?

The AKC wants no legislation passed that would hinder a breeder from breeding and registering with AKC. Unfortunately as with most all things, it's about money. Breeders don't want laws that would interfere with their lucrative business and AKC needs the breeder's fees to stay profitable.

Clearly, AS A BREEDER AND HAVING BEEN ACTIVELY INVOLVED WITH YORKIES SINCE 1978, OBVIOUSLY I AM DOING SOMETHING HORRIBLY, TERRIBLY WRONG!!! I can promise you, watching the evening news, my dogs are cared for better than a lot of people take care of their kids! "LUCRATIVE BUSINESS"?????? Not by a looooooong shot! This "bill", this "federal mandate", is just ONE MORE LUDICROUS example of government assertiveness into areas, employing laws and methods of enforcement, that are so far out of their realm of practice, it is ALMOST laughable......Except, the joke is going to be on PET OWNERS everywhere. Knowledgable people in this "lucrative" business, know full well what this is going to do to US....we also know it will have little effect on the people YOU think it is going to curtail, the puppy mills, etc......the only people in the dark about all the ramifications this bill will have on them, is YOU, the pet owner! One of these days, you will catch yourself saying, "Well yes, I supported that, but I NEVER DREAMED it would mean this!!!!!!!!! NEVER DREAMED it would affect THIS!!!!!!!" And the puppy mills will STILL continue to flourish....the ONLY people driven out of business, are going to be the small ethical, responsible, reputable, HOBBY BREEDERS (there is that filthy word again!!!), that are currently producing a 2-3 of HEALTHY, WELL SOCIALIZED, ADORED LITTERS PER YEAR, making sure they are going to homes that will love and care for them as much as we do.

[Yorkiemom1]

[QUOTE=jencar98;3972677]I commend the Girl Scouts for their attempts. Although I don't believe the legislation would protect dogs in many breeding programs. The USDA is the entity entrusted to inspect dog kennels and have failed miserably at their job. The agency will never be funded enough to inspect kennels or breeders on a routine basis, so the unscrupulous breeders will still get away with their disgusting practices. With our government's budget completely out of control, any legislator would be foolish (re-election nightmare)to recommend extreme funding increases for the USDA.

To answer the question: Why would the AKC be against inspections?

The AKC wants no legislation passed that would hinder a breeder from breeding and registering with AKC. Unfortunately as with most all things, it's about money. Breeders don't want laws that would interfere with their lucrative business and AKC needs the breeder's fees to stay profitable.

Clearly, AS A BREEDER AND HAVING BEEN ACTIVELY INVOLVED WITH YORKIES SINCE 1978, OBVIOUSLY I AM DOING SOMETHING HORRIBLY, TERRIBLY WRONG!!! I can promise you, watching the evening news, my dogs are cared for better than a lot of people take care of their kids! "LUCRATIVE BUSINESS"?????? Not by a looooooong shot! This "bill", this "federal mandate", is just ONE MORE LUDICROUS example of government assertiveness into areas, employing laws and methods of enforcement, that are so far out of their realm of practice, it is ALMOST laughable......Except, the joke is going to be on PET OWNERS everywhere. Knowledgable people in this "lucrative" business, know full well what this is going to do to US....we also know it will have little effect on the people YOU think it is going to curtail, the puppy mills, etc......the only people in the dark about all the ramifications this bill will have on them, is YOU, the pet owner! One of these days, you will catch yourself saying, "Well yes, I supported that, but I NEVER DREAMED it would mean this!!!!!!!!! NEVER DREAMED it would affect THIS!!!!!!!" And the puppy mills will STILL continue to flourish....the ONLY people driven out of business, are going to be the small ethical, responsible, reputable, HOBBY BREEDERS (there is that filthy word again!!!), that are currently producing a 2-3 of HEALTHY, WELL SOCIALIZED, ADORED LITTERS PER YEAR, making sure they are going to homes that will love and care for them as much as we do.

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by gracielove

I have to go with the Girl Scouts here as well. The AKC has done nothing but oppose all proposed regulation of puppy mills. Even rules such as tethering of animals for long periods of time have been opposed by the AKC.
I understand that over regulation can be a problem but as yet what has AKC contributed in the way of helping to put together legislation that would put puppy mills out of business but also protect the "small" hobby breeder? If their true concern is for the hobby breeder then why don't they get involved in helping to craft legislation that will do both? As of this moment they have only moved to obstruct and done nothing to pitch in and help. Laws have to be constructed to stop abusive breeding practices and to protect animals from the many heartless pet owners that care nothing about the dog tied to a post in the back yard.
Go Girl Scouts! Maybe you can also convince AKC that they have a responsibility to protect all animals and not just their kennel owners. Many of the AKC breeders are far from small hobby breeders. It is their business and it comes down to dollars and cents here.

We've got to get something done to stop so many dogs from being so exploited by people for one reason or the other. And it's not just in breeding and show dog programs or BYB/hobby/casual or puppy mill breeders who might treat dogs as less than beloved pets.

I just want to grit my teeth when I see how hobby racing sled dogs in Alaska and the polar climates live their lives - many chained to a dog house in a large pen except for when they must run for hours in some race(or training for same) over the worst of territory for hours and hours. Some dogs have big runs and kennels but they largely live confined except when running pulling the sled or allowed out to exercise. I would run like a hare too if most of my time was staying confined in some form or fashion! A big, beautiful animal like that and most of its day when not racing or "exercising" is that of confinement and apparently little prolonged human interaction targeted toward that specific dog. Where that dog team is performing a vital human service, I can accept it but those that have a racing team just as a hobby and do it just as a sport - keeping a flock of dogs largely as a mostly confined pack with exercise periods and visits from the human a few times a day all the dogs' lives seems exploitive to me. And many of the racers trade out dogs like women friends trade out recipes or something! No forever homes for many of that team! They are used and moved out in more than a few instances as a matter of course. Watch NatGeo and see how cavalierly many of the dogs are treated when not actively part of the racing team. They don't focus on that part of the fancy though on the TV shows but if you watch enough, you glimpse it happening - just the racing mostly is covered on TV. But if you read a book or two about it, it is shocking how the dogs are not treated as loved pets. So many of those dogs are bred for and exist solely to race for sport and the rest of their lives, looks to me at least, to be lived not as loved house pets but as something much less and very few of the sport racing dogs seem to have an actual pet relationship with its owner. I don't know - maybe confinement away from a lot of human interaction is what some dogs need and want in life and they are substantially different than our pets. But knowing the nature of so many dogs over the years, except for a very, very few, most dogs just thrive on the home environment with a rich, ongoing daily interactive relationship with its person or family.

[yorkietalkjilly]

[quote=Yorkiemom1;3972763]

Originally Posted by jencar98

I commend the Girl Scouts for their attempts. Although I don't believe the legislation would protect dogs in many breeding programs. The USDA is the entity entrusted to inspect dog kennels and have failed miserably at their job. The agency will never be funded enough to inspect kennels or breeders on a routine basis, so the unscrupulous breeders will still get away with their disgusting practices. With our government's budget completely out of control, any legislator would be foolish (re-election nightmare)to recommend extreme funding increases for the USDA.

To answer the question: Why would the AKC be against inspections?

The AKC wants no legislation passed that would hinder a breeder from breeding and registering with AKC. Unfortunately as with most all things, it's about money. Breeders don't want laws that would interfere with their lucrative business and AKC needs the breeder's fees to stay profitable.

Clearly, AS A BREEDER AND HAVING BEEN ACTIVELY INVOLVED WITH YORKIES SINCE 1978, OBVIOUSLY I AM DOING SOMETHING HORRIBLY, TERRIBLY WRONG!!! I can promise you, watching the evening news, my dogs are cared for better than a lot of people take care of their kids! "LUCRATIVE BUSINESS"?????? Not by a looooooong shot! This "bill", this "federal mandate", is just ONE MORE LUDICROUS example of government assertiveness into areas, employing laws and methods of enforcement, that are so far out of their realm of practice, it is ALMOST laughable......Except, the joke is going to be on PET OWNERS everywhere. Knowledgable people in this "lucrative" business, know full well what this is going to do to US....we also know it will have little effect on the people YOU think it is going to curtail, the puppy mills, etc......the only people in the dark about all the ramifications this bill will have on them, is YOU, the pet owner! One of these days, you will catch yourself saying, "Well yes, I supported that, but I NEVER DREAMED it would mean this!!!!!!!!! NEVER DREAMED it would affect THIS!!!!!!!" And the puppy mills will STILL continue to flourish....the ONLY people driven out of business, are going to be the small ethical, responsible, reputable, HOBBY BREEDERS (there is that filthy word again!!!), that are currently producing a 2-3 of HEALTHY, WELL SOCIALIZED, ADORED LITTERS PER YEAR, making sure they are going to homes that will love and care for them as much as we do.

So what is the answer? We've clearly got to do something to stop exploiting dogs by the worst of the worst. But we can never seem to get anything off the ground because of breeders saying they - the good ones - are the only ones to be affected. Government has to get involved when people won't stop themselves from overbreeding/cramming sick dogs in stacked cages! Who else can stop this kind of cruelty? (sorry for the big font - it happens so often when I run Spellcheck & it's embarrassing I can't figure out how to stop it until I run a disk cleanup type program!!!)

[jencar98]

Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1

Clearly, AS A BREEDER AND HAVING BEEN ACTIVELY INVOLVED WITH YORKIES SINCE 1978, OBVIOUSLY I AM DOING SOMETHING HORRIBLY, TERRIBLY WRONG!!! I can promise you, watching the evening news, my dogs are cared for better than a lot of people take care of their kids! "LUCRATIVE BUSINESS"?????? Not by a looooooong shot! This "bill", this "federal mandate", is just ONE MORE LUDICROUS example of government assertiveness into areas, employing laws and methods of enforcement, that are so far out of their realm of practice, it is ALMOST laughable......Except, the joke is going to be on PET OWNERS everywhere. Knowledgable people in this "lucrative" business, know full well what this is going to do to US....we also know it will have little effect on the people YOU think it is going to curtail, the puppy mills, etc......the only people in the dark about all the ramifications this bill will have on them, is YOU, the pet owner! One of these days, you will catch yourself saying, "Well yes, I supported that, but I NEVER DREAMED it would mean this!!!!!!!!! NEVER DREAMED it would affect THIS!!!!!!!" And the puppy mills will STILL continue to flourish....the ONLY people driven out of business, are going to be the small ethical, responsible, reputable, HOBBY BREEDERS (there is that filthy word again!!!), that are currently producing a 2-3 of HEALTHY, WELL SOCIALIZED, ADORED LITTERS PER YEAR, making sure they are going to homes that will love and care for them as much as we do.

Whoooaaa.....there! I respect some hobby breeders more than even show breeders. Also, I never said I supported this legislation, mainly because it will not curtail the unethical breeder's bad breeding practices. I do commend the Girl Scouts for their efforts, bc it brings attention to this subject, and it's refreshing to see young people become active in a subject that is dear to me. I simply stated what I believe to be the truth....this legislation will do nothing to protect innocent dogs, the USDA fails miserably at their current job, and most legislators will not back this law during an election year (although, that really depends on which group's lobbyist has more money, AR or AKC). I then attempted to answer the OP's question as to why the AKC wouldn't support this legislation and I do believe when you follow the money, the truth comes out.....this legislation would hurt the AKC's bottom line.

Yes, unfortunately, ethical breeders will also have to comply with stifling laws enacted to protect dogs in order to continue breeding. It's as with anything else, the innocent suffer, while the guilty will pack up and move on to their next money maker.

I understand the ethical hobby breeder's point of view and concerns. I just wish someone could come up with a better solution.

[Yorkiemom1]

You can not LEGISLATE morality! There are already laws in every State to deal with these animal abuses....let the States appropriate the necessary man power/salaries to enforce the laws already on the books. PUNISH THE PERPETRATORS!! The answer is NOT to get a strangle hold on all breeders, driving the responsible ones out of business with insurmountable additional fees and regulations that it just is not worth the expense and effort to comply with....so a breeder that has healthy, beautiful babies that are everything a puppy SHOULD be, just folds up and quits. WHO does that affect? The person wanting such a pet....so now where do they go? They go to flea markets, the trunks of cars off the highway, parking lots, etc.....and they end up with exactly what the government thinks they are going to stop!

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1

You can not LEGISLATE morality! There are already laws in every State to deal with these animal abuses....let the States appropriate the necessary man power/salaries to enforce the laws already on the books. PUNISH THE PERPETRATORS!! The answer is NOT to get a strangle hold on all breeders, driving the responsible ones out of business with insurmountable additional fees and regulations that it just is not worth the expense and effort to comply with....so a breeder that has healthy, beautiful babies that are everything a puppy SHOULD be, just folds up and quits. WHO does that affect? The person wanting such a pet....so now where do they go? They go to flea markets, the trunks of cars off the highway, parking lots, etc.....and they end up with exactly what the government thinks they are going to stop!

The present system is apparently not working with the states bearing the brunt, though. How would the legislation the Girl Scouts proposing hurt you? Why would it come after you and put you out of business?

[Yorkiemom1]

You have to read the proposed bill in its entirety...then the most understandable way to see just a few of the problems this is going to cause small breeders, is to read some of the letters from petitioners that are opposing this Bill. Each letter submitted explanes how this Bill will affect them. There are aspects that people who do not breed dogs, have absolutely no concept.....exceptional blood lines and rare breeds are sought after all over the country and the world!!! I have imported 3 of my ladies from Belgium and Brazil!!! I can not go to these countries to "put my hands on these dogs" before I buy them...and if I do, the cost of any puppies these ladies throws, has just gone up to cover my expense! This is just ONE issue! I copied/pasted some of the preamble from AKC's site here:
"The rule also requires anyone who owns more than four “breeding females” and sells puppies, cats or other small/exotic pets “sight unseen,” by any means, to be licensed, regulated and inspected as a USDA commercial breeder. (Who do you think is going to be held responsible financially for this massive misadventure???)
The rule creates an unfair burden on small breeders who may depend on the ability to place dogs very selectively in known situations without physically meeting with the purchaser at the specific time of sale. Likewise, many hobbyists are comfortable purchasing an animal sight-unseen based on known pedigrees, bloodlines, previous relationships or personal knowledge of each other’s facilities and programs. Such scenarios are particularly common and necessary for breeders and fanciers of rare breeds.
It is unreasonable to expect small breeders, who may keep a handful of intact females in their homes, to be able to meet exacting USDA commercial kennel engineering standards that were never intended for home environments. Other pre-existing restrictions such as local ordinances, insurance or licensing may also prevent hobbyists from adapting their facilities. The unintended consequences of this proposed rule create unreasonable hardships on small hobby breeders. This rule could threaten the future of a vast number of small responsible dog breeders and the very existence of some rare breeds in the United States." The additional costs of licensing, insurance, restrictive policies that will prevent me from purchasing quality bloodlines from around the world...all these issues are of concern to me....if I was making hundredes of thousands of dollars doing this, this would not be a problem...but this is my passion, not my job...I barely break even providing the quality of puppies, on the scale I provide them, to people that trust me and expect me to provide them a healthy puppy. I, like hundreds of good, honest breeders, will not be able to continue doing what we love to do, because we can NOT do this and loose money consistantly....that would be a business that does not support itself, which is all I ask of my business. If it can not pay for itself, I will close it down, and everyone that COULD have bought one of my babies, will go to a pet store and get their baby....PROVIDED BY A PUPPY MILL!!!!!!

[yorkietalkjilly]

The licensing fee didn't look that high, to me. How much would it be for a hobby breeder per dog they kept on premise?

[yorkietalkjilly]

We have got to get some legislation that will stop puppymillers & the horrible people that are using dogs in unconscionable ways to produce puppies that are so often destined to live disease-compromised lives amidst their behavioral problems. Since state and other laws aren't working to stop the problem, we have to give this or other legislation a chance or push better legislation. I imagine breeders have a good bill in mind they could get behind and tell us about so we can push that. If it takes the Fed to stop puppy mills and bad, bad breeders, wouldn't it be worth it since every day millions of dogs are living in misery as it is? Maybe the price we pay is paying way more for dogs but wouldn't it be worth it? We can't keep asking just the dogs to pay the price.

[gracielove]

This is not the first legislation the AKC has blocked. They block every bit of legislation that they find that concerns livestock in general. No, you cannot legislate morality but the United States is and always has been a country that operates by the rule of law. When the health and welfare of people and livestock are at risk there has to be legislation in order to control those who are out to profit at the expense of the innocent. We cannot morally or ethically ignore the wholesale suffering that occurs in the current puppy mill and BYB situations in order to make it easy for large scale AKC kennels to continue unchecked. If these kennels are well run then they have nothing to be concerned about.

AKC is not out to protect the small hobby breeder. This is about big time kennels. A small hobby breeder should have nothing to be concerned about in any of the state crafted legislation. You may want to be more concerned about city law makers that want to put regulation on everything from what your fence is made of to how many people can reside in your home.

Instead of being obstructionists AKC needs to prove that they have the best interests of the animals in mind and get together with humane organizations and legislators to craft legislation that can help stop the abuse that is rampant in what was once a humane country while also seeing that reputable breeders can continue doing their best for the breeds they represent.