Thursday, January 24, 2008

Donate to
Please donate to support our work is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »

posted by   |  permalink  |  6 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 


Anonymous Dee  |  1/24/2008 12:56 AM  |  Flag  
Talk about a law that BENDS OVER BACKWARDS in support of flexibility for breeders, and the AKC still venomously opposes? From whom does the AKC get their donations? How can they on one hand support the respectability of breeding lines and on the other support breeders who can't show up with a business license?

A business license is not hard to get! And it is most certainly required for all US businesses, whether you make $500 annually or $100,000. This is called the IRS and paying taxes on earned income. People that sell dogs for extra income, or sell dogs for a full time income need to pay rent to the US government just like everyone else!

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/24/2008 6:47 AM  |  Flag  
I'd like to see a liabilty insurance requirement also. The pup proliferation biz is not only tax free but liability free!

I don't understand why breeder associations oppose this? You would think that less dogs on the market would make soundly bred, legal puppies command a premium.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/24/2008 11:15 AM  |  Flag  
Ahhh, I know what the problem is; the federal tax ID number. You don't really think that dog breeders are paying taxes on the dogs they sell, do you?

That's part of what makes the business so lucrative for BYBers. It's an income source for these people, off the books. Serious hobby breeders rarely make any significant income, after you deduct the cost of vet care, genetic health screening, travel costs and entrance fees for particpating in dog shows, and the thousands of hours spent preparing and training dogs for conformation or performance events.

Again, dog breeders can thank the pit bull lobby for forcing communities to adopt BSL because they REFUSED to self-regulate, and are HORRIBLE stewards of the breed.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/24/2008 2:03 PM  |  Flag  
The bill does not say how much an intact permit will cost. This will be set by the counties to cover the cost of administering the program. It could be several hundred dollars. However, since all a breeder has to do is show a registration for the animal and pay the fee, this law seems reasonable at first glance. But let's think about a few things.

What is the goal is here? To decrease the number of animals being killed in shelters. This is a laudable goal. So the first question to ask before proposing a solution should logically be what is the source of animals in the shelters? Registered purebreds are a minority of shelter stats, so clearly the main source is those people who do random breedings. Will an ordinance like this affect the people who do random breedings? Highly doubtful. Such people are irresponsible to begin with, why would they suddenly become responsible? Sure, animal control could confiscate their animals if they don't obey the law, but that just increases the shelter numbers. So who is most likely to pay attention to this ordinance? Hobby breeders who show their animals and business breeders making a profit.

Hobby breeders already S/N the pets they sell or require them to be S/N'd. These people are not the source of shelter numbers. Larger breeders, or what some would call mills, don't bother with the S/N of pets because that cuts into the profit margin. So what will happen if hobby breeders have to pay a fee for each animal? Most likely they won't breed the animals. Good you say? Okay, then where will people get pets? From the larger breeders who do this for $$$, and they are the ones who will pay any fee that any county sets for the permits.

All this type of legislation does is increase business for the very people who are the source of the problem - those people who do not breed for competition. It will drive the hobby breeders out, yet demand for pets will not decrease. Demand will turn to whatever source their is, and the irresponsible breeder and business breeder (the mills) will thrive.

Bend over backwards in support of flexibility for breeders? Hardly! This type of legislation does absolutely nothing to address the source of the animals in shelters, in fact it most likely will enable the type of breeder who is the source to thrive.


Anonymous Anonymous  |  1/24/2008 3:53 PM  |  Flag  
From what I am reading, breeders would have to buy a breeders license, not pay a fee for each intact animal they own....I am not reading that a hobby breeder needs to pay a fee for each intact animal. Am I misunderstanding this law?

In most municipalities I am familiar with, all dogs must be licensed and registered, with a higher fee being paid for those who are intact. Is the proposal to increse the fee for intact animals? Do puppy mills have to register and pay a yearly fee for all of their breeding stock?

I think dog breeding is in dire need of being regulated, both from a humane standpoint and a public health and welfare standpoint. The status quo is not working....dogs suffer, innocent citizens are victimized by aggressive dogs, and the taxpayers end up footing the bill......paying for the housing and euthanization of strays and abandoned dogs, using law enforcemnt manpower to deal with dog attacks, and footing the medical bills for the high cost of treating uninsured or underinsured do attack victims.

Something got to give.

Blogger Packhorse  |  8/01/2011 5:39 PM  |  Flag  
Chasing those puppy mill registration bucks at the expense of dog and community welfare...that's what the AKC does best.

Post a Comment »