What do you guys think about this proposed law?

[cekaai]

"A3401 goes beyond encouraging responsible breeding. Under A3401, all breeders would be required to comply with draconian regulations including maintaining specified temperatures, keeping animals only on nonporous surfaces, and circulating air at precise intervals. The measure further mandates the acceptable dimensions for crates and runs and sets minimum socialization standards. Finally, all breeders are required to register annually with the Department of Health. This list will be published and made available to the public.

All breeders are required to furnish specified information to pet purchasers and provide a full refund for any reason for a pet returned within 14 days. Any dog which is sold with a pedigree can be returned for a full refund within 26 months if any congenital or genetic defects are discovered.

Violations can be punished with both monetary fines and suspension of the license to sell pets. A first violation can result in a prohibition on selling cats or dogs for 5 years and subsequent offenses can add an additional 5 years for each violation. Civil penalties may also be administered. For a first offense a breeder shall be fined $5,000 and for a second offense the breeder may be fined $10,000 for each subsequent offense. A member of the public who supplies information that results in fines or suspension will be eligible for an award of 10 percent of the civil penalty or $250, whichever is greater."

This is from the AKC website, they are vehemently opposed to it. I happen to think it seems reasonable, what are you guys opinion?
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2959

[Bama Yorkie Mom]

I agree. After all , it is a business.

[Sunnyd]

and maybe this is going to upset some people but I also think it should limit the number of dogs a person can own, the number of litters per dog in a certain period of time and the number of litters that can be registered per owner in a given period of time. I know this will "punish" some of the good breeders but I really think it's the only way to stop puppymills.

[HisNameIsHarley]

I totally agree. The more they get down on these laws the better. Sunnyd, I like how you think.

[RLC12345678]

Ok, so at first glace it sounds great, fabulous, and wonderful, but there is just no way that anyone would be able to enforce this. We would be wasting legislators time and our tax money arguing over this bill. If this law were passed, what would happen to someone that owns a big dog that lives in the backyard, and the dog came in heat, and another dog jumps the fence and your dog becomes pregnant?? The owner of that dog is practically going to have to change their lives around to be able to comply with this law. The idea is great, it is just simply not feasible. Because it is not feasbile, I am against it only because we would be wasting valuable tax dollars to pass the bill in the first place.

Also, limiting how many pets someone can own goes against our rights as citizens of the United States. That would be like limiting the amount of children you have. It just simply not something that the United States of American would support.

[jmetts]

[/QUOTE] Also, limiting how many pets someone can own goes against our rights as citizens of the United States. That would be like limiting the amount of children you have. It just simply not something that the United States of American would support.[/QUOTE]

I agree that a limit would go against our rights. I do know that there are people out there that have more animals than they are able to take care of, but these people need to be dealt with on an individual basis & under a different bill.....Animal cruelty or something??

I actually just wanted to add my 2 cents in regarding Home Owner Associations in communities....being a builder I see many & they now often have limits to the number of pets allowed. The common amount is 4, but I have seen where only 3 are allowed in a fenced yard at time. Surprisingly, I've only lost one sale due to this rule in the past.

[YorkieRose]

I am leery of the 26 month ruling on defects, 12 is fair to me JMO. It is hard to get vets to agree what caused what as it is ...2 yrs is a long time..much can go wrong due to improper care and diet. You realize a bad bite can be genetic OR neglect on the part of the pet owner who does not have retained puppy teeth pulled promptly..some bites are totally ruined. Fleas can start a chronic long time skin allergy, the fleas may be gone, but the skin problems can linger..skin problems can be looked at as genetic..same goes for some pancreatic problems, legs/knees..a dropped puppy can show symtoms of neuroloical genetic conditions...I had a buyer accidently hit hers in the head with the bedroom door, skull fracture..it had seizures later..fortunately we had the same vet and he told me not to refund her money...all she told me was her Yorkie started having seizures for no reason...a breeder friends pup got hit with a baseball bat..saddly, nto all peopel will tell the truth.

The rest sounds good...but these laws always hurt the reputable breeder, because the crooks have ways around them..try to find some in 6 months let alone 26 months..

PS..I totally agree on the number of dogs a person can own and a limit on the number of litters..but how can this be enforced..? People put their pets in friends and relatives names to avoid AKC as it is..

[Zoey's Momma]

I agree.

[Sunnyd]

I wasn't necessarily talking about limiting the number of pets a person can own, though most cities do have a limit. I was specifically thinking about state licensed kennels. I agree these would be very hard and expensive to enforce and that there would be a million ways around it.

[Lacy's Mom]

I agree with YorkieRose's post.