Mo. Law has been in place one day and now this:

[Tommy Coyote]

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/04/2396011/breeders-to-push-missouri-lawmakers.html

 

Breeders and agriculture are trying to get the bill repealed or modified.

 

This bill is going absolutely nowhere. So once again big money agriculture and big money AKC breeders will win. All of these AKC people who absolutely hate puppy mills and absolutely love all of their dogs. I am so sick of the hypocrisy of these people.

 

And the poor little puppy mill dogs will still be sitting out in the rain and snow and ice in their tiny filthy cages. If one of them dies you just throw their body in the trash.

 

Granted the bill should have been worded better. But there has to be some way to stop these god awful puppy mills.

 

One woman the paper interviewed had 100 dogs - that she absolutely loved and adored. And this bill would have put her out of business because there is a limit of 50 dogs. And her dogs didn't have access to the outside. There she was selling her loved and adored puppies out of the back of her car. I wish the reporter had gone to her facility and reported from there.

 

Sorry, I am bitter today. I am just so sick of these puppy mills and all the heartbreak that goes along with them. My guess is that as long as there is big money to be made the situation will never improve.

[MyTDogs]

Sorry I know it is easy to get discouraged. I think there is a solution- just like teen pregnancy or drug use. It is not about making more laws. It is about enforcing the current laws & EDUCATING the ignorant.

 

Take your energy & put it into making literature to hand out everywhere you go. Stand outside the local puppy peddler (there are flea markets here) and hand out your info. Try & teach people why they shouldn't buy a dog from a pet store or puppy mill auction. It is so sad for the individual dogs but any support to these endeavors only prolongs the suffering by ensuring the cycle will continue.

 

ETA: removed Freudian typo

[sea4th]

I have known many ACK breeders over the years who are just as disgusted by the situations you describe. The ACK breeders I've known throughout the years become angered and would like to see these mills shut down for good because they really do care about not only their dogs but dogs in general. They are not bad people.

 

Many of them don't agree with their registry's raking in money from millers, but I honestly think that they are not sure what can be done. Maybe it's easier to ignore that the registry that has molded a way of life for them (breeding to improve one's breed, dog shows and dog activities), is the same registry which is supported by registration fees from mills, their cash cow. Dog shows, registrations from reputable breeders, entry fees are only a drop in the bucket in ACK's revenue. ACK would never survive if it did the right thing (refuse to register mass bred puppies)and to appease any doubts that their reputable breeders might have about ACK's not doing anything about puppy mills, every month in their minutes you read about someone being suspended, having their ACK privileges revoked, etc. ACK is really talking out the both sides of it's mouth. The reputable dog people within their system help maintain their stellar image. The puppy mills are their real cash cow and they're not going to kill that cow.

 

So you keep endorsing dog shows, pretty dogs and give out ribbons and trophies. Keeps the reputable minority appeased.

 

The frump with the 100 dogs is in bed with ACK. ACK's got a lotta ho's, but ACK also has people within it's ranks who genuinely love dogs more than $$$, believe it or not.

[Pearse]

lust like teen pregnancy

 

 

Freudian slip of the Day!

 

 

 

 

[Pam Wolf]

Unless the woman said her dogs were AKC, don't just assume it Not to defend AKC, but to set the record straight. A few years back, AKC tightened up on breeding, and that basically means that dogs used often have to be DNA tested. In order to cut costs and avoid the record keeping requirements, many/most PM's started their own registries. The names are similar to AKC, such as American Kennel Registry etc. This allowed them to register designer dogs and avoid having anyone check registration/ authenticity of papers/breedings. They even have obedience titles (pretty much meaningless) and show titles for their dogs.

 

While AKC has it's flaws, the PM's found ways around their regulations. And Yes, the wording of the bill is the issue with many people.

[Journey]

Yuck, this is really hard to write....most if not all PM's do not register with ACK. Education is the key but we all know how well that is working! I read the bill and have to agree, it should be repealed. With the bare passing of it and the fact it was pushed by H$U$ imo warrants it being revisited. How is Missouri going to pay for it?

[Tommy Coyote]

Yuck, this is really hard to write....most if not all PM's do not register with ACK. Education is the key but we all know how well that is working! I read the bill and have to agree, it should be repealed. With the bare passing of it and the fact it was pushed by H$U$ imo warrants it being revisited. How is Missouri going to pay for it?

So if they don't register with the AKC then are most of the puppies sold in pet stores not AKC registered?

I thought that was one of the big selling points? One of the reasons they can ask such incredible prices for those puppies.

 

The AKC breeders were upset about the "unfettered" access to the outside. I'm not sure why someone didn't catch that one a long time ago. Almost no dogs have unfettered access to the outside unless they live somewhere with a doggy door. I wonder if they just meant that all the dogs should have access to the outside for exercise on a regular basis. Or just access to an area outside their kennels for exercise.

 

The other big thing was the number of dogs allowed. I think the AKC people actually caused a lot of the confusion on that themselves. The bill read that to qualify under the law you had to have 10 or more breeding females. The AKC people I talked to all said that it applied to just a total of 10 intact dogs - dogs and bitches.

 

Well and only allowing 50 breeding dogs per kennel. That seems like an enormous number of dogs to me but some of these people have 400 dogs or more.

 

I don't think the other parts of the bill were out of line - veterinary care, cages that were big enough to move around in, adequate shelter from the elements.

 

I'm hoping that the backers of the bill can go in and correct the problems and not let the whole thing go down.

[Tommy Coyote]

Unless the woman said her dogs were AKC, don't just assume it Not to defend AKC, but to set the record straight. A few years back, AKC tightened up on breeding, and that basically means that dogs used often have to be DNA tested. In order to cut costs and avoid the record keeping requirements, many/most PM's started their own registries. The names are similar to AKC, such as American Kennel Registry etc. This allowed them to register designer dogs and avoid having anyone check registration/ authenticity of papers/breedings. They even have obedience titles (pretty much meaningless) and show titles for their dogs.

 

While AKC has it's flaws, the PM's found ways around their regulations. And Yes, the wording of the bill is the issue with many people.

I don't know. I think maybe the argument over the wording was just the excuse. Too many big money people simply don't want this bill on the books at all.

[Journey]

No it isn't big names that don't want it - it's the small breeders. Yes, many if not most pet store pups are registered with a different org. Not ACK. While there "may" be good points to the bill the entire thing negates them imo. Hold your nose, go to a pet store and ask about papers, you will be surprised! Granted MO has a problem but this bill will do nothing to help it.

[MyTDogs]

Freudian slip of the Day!

 

LOL! Oops

[MyTDogs]

Freudian slip of the Day!

 

LOL! Oops

[Christina]

No it isn't big names that don't want it - it's the small breeders. Yes, many if not most pet store pups are registered with a different org. Not ACK. While there "may" be good points to the bill the entire thing negates them imo. Hold your nose, go to a pet store and ask about papers, you will be surprised! Granted MO has a problem but this bill will do nothing to help it.

 

I don't want to start any pro/con argument here, but isn't it worth mentioning that something is being done? I have close friends that are strongly against this bill, and close friends who support it to no end. Both of them have extremely valid points, and both are, in my humble opinion, ethically and politically correct. The problem is, the "against" side argues that the bill will do nothing to help the dogs in puppy mills- then leaves it at that. This is a step in a direction, if not the right one, isn't it? How many lightyears away from banning pet ownership is something like this really?

 

I got the impression that the minute the pet enthusiasts heard the HSUS had anything to do with the bill, they saw it as a chance to freak out over something that could turn into nothing. I dislike HSUS as much as the next person, but at least they have the benefit of saying that they're doing something.

 

For the record, I'm in the "undecided" portion. I'll decide whether the bill was a good thing when we start seeing some positive or negative results in MO.

 

Maybe there is something I'm not understanding?

[Journey]

"Something" was done with the last bill - nothing was done though. W/O education and or enforcement nothing will be accomplished other than giving more power to the government. At what point does the government/state/H$U$ have to much power or authority to trample peoples lives and property at their choosing?

[MyTDogs]

"Something" was done with the last bill - nothing was done though. W/O education and or enforcement nothing will be accomplished other than giving more power to the government. At what point does the government/state/H$U$ have to much power or authority to trample peoples lives and property at their choosing?

 

EXACTLY!

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms/Mr Journey writes: "At what point does the government/state/H$U$ have to much power or authority to trample peoples lives and property at their choosing?"

 

Holy smokes! Need we distinguish between the United States Government and an animal welfare organization? Despite our deeply wacky political climate, surely citizens can differentiate between those organizations to whom they must send taxes and those to whom they may send contributions.

 

Donald McCaig

[Eileen Stein]

I got the impression that the minute the pet enthusiasts heard the HSUS had anything to do with the bill, they saw it as a chance to freak out over something that could turn into nothing.

 

I don't think there's any doubt there are a lot of people who would oppose any puppy mill legislation for reasons of political correctness -- "political correctness," in this case, being the political belief that government should not regulate what people do with their private property, or the political strategy of opposing anything that a particular interest group (HSUS) favors. That doesn't bother me so much if the people are upfront about their motivation, even though I'd rather people evaluated a bill on the merits of what it actually provides. It does bother me, though, when those people advance other reasons to justify their opposition, such as saying that there is already legislation on the books that covers what the new bill covers when they have no idea what legislation is on the books already, or saying the bill won't be enforced when they have no idea whether it will or won't be enforced, or misrepresenting the provisions of the bill.

 

There is no incompatibility between education and legislation. In fact, legislation often serves an educational function.

[Tommy Coyote]

I stated this in an earlier post but one of the newspaper articles I read was from the Moberly paper. Moberly would be out in the rural area. One of the cattle bigwigs stated opposition to the bill solely because the HSUS was backing it.

 

Just because the HSUS backs something doesn't automatically make it bad. There were lots of animal welfare groups and shelters that backed this bill.

 

I just don't believe there was some big dark conspiracy thing at work here. No one wanted people to lose their right to own pets. No one wanted the AKC show people to stop breeding their show dogs.

 

The backers of this bill simply want the puppy mills stopped. And with good reason. Missouri has more puppy mills than any other state. And who knows how many unregistered puppy mills breeders there are out there. Its a huge disgrace and it needs to be corrected.

[Journey]

I think what this bill will do is punish the good breeders and drive others further underground. I may be confusing 2 bills but the 2 posted side by side in a different thread, the one wasn't that old. Why the need for an upgrade? Did the first one not work? Was it enforced? What? And still how is this going to be enforced and paid for?

[Tommy Coyote]

I think what this bill will do is punish the good breeders and drive others further underground. I may be confusing 2 bills but the 2 posted side by side in a different thread, the one wasn't that old. Why the need for an upgrade? Did the first one not work? Was it enforced? What? And still how is this going to be enforced and paid for?

Let me find out more about the reasons for the new bill. I think the new bill actually made animal cruelty and neglect in the puppy mills a criminal offense - misdemeanor. And I think it broadened the scope of law enforcement so that other law enforcement officers - like sheriffs and city police could take action if they needed to.

 

Actually, I think any enforcement would be better than what we had. I know authorities have busted some of the very worst operators in the past because it has hit the news. But I think enforcement has been very lax. A lot - maybe most - of these operation are out in the rural areas.

 

I do know there is active law enforcement action around here to stop the dog fighting. It takes a long time to get someone undercover but once they do they will move in on dog fighting operations.

[Tommy Coyote]

Here is one article that addresses the issues:

http://www.bolivarmonews.com/news/article_9f1d7909-2cba-5685-9e9d-4af7b5afca21.html

[Pam Wolf]

Been busy for a few days. First. the public doesn't realize that papers are papers. Few would notice that the American Kennel Association (one of the PM registries I believe) is any different from AKC. The PM'ers choose a similar name to dupe the public. How many people realize that a 'designer dog' is simply a mutt? Yet many of these come with 'registration papers' via one of the PM registries.

 

As for the HSUS. While it may do some good in keeping big Ag in line, thru some of the actions it can create hardships for smaller producers. And HSUS is in bed with PETA (and not People eating tasty animals) and hence many farmers/ranchers have a BIG problem with that group-call it guilt by association.

 

Laws are already in place to police the PM's but not enforced. I doubt the 50 dog limit would hurt many show/hobby breeders. Numbers is not a big issue IMO, it depends on HOW those animals are cared for. Sounds like some of the issues we had when KS tightened it's laws many years ago. Fortunately we had saner minds familiar with dogs helping to formulate the regulations. While strict but livable, they eliminated MANY PM's in KS(including my neighbor). Housing was an area difficult to explain to legislators. That is why we developed the show/hobby category in the laws here and it helped. Breeders can have mroe dogs but have to be State Liscensed.

[Tommy Coyote]

Been busy for a few days. First. the public doesn't realize that papers are papers. Few would notice that the American Kennel Association (one of the PM registries I believe) is any different from AKC. The PM'ers choose a similar name to dupe the public. How many people realize that a 'designer dog' is simply a mutt? Yet many of these come with 'registration papers' via one of the PM registries.

 

As for the HSUS. While it may do some good in keeping big Ag in line, thru some of the actions it can create hardships for smaller producers. And HSUS is in bed with PETA (and not People eating tasty animals) and hence many farmers/ranchers have a BIG problem with that group-call it guilt by association.

 

Laws are already in place to police the PM's but not enforced. I doubt the 50 dog limit would hurt many show/hobby breeders. Numbers is not a big issue IMO, it depends on HOW those animals are cared for. Sounds like some of the issues we had when KS tightened it's laws many years ago. Fortunately we had saner minds familiar with dogs helping to formulate the regulations. While strict but livable, they eliminated MANY PM's in KS(including my neighbor). Housing was an area difficult to explain to legislators. That is why we developed the show/hobby category in the laws here and it helped. Breeders can have mroe dogs but have to be State Liscensed.

I just saw where they busted a huge PM - 1,000 dogs. I think the DOA revoked their license. They had 10 people taking care of 1,000 dogs. I guess the dogs went to auction and now the rescuers are in there trying to see what they can do.

[Sue R]

I just saw where they busted a huge PM - 1,000 dogs. I think the DOA revoked their license. They had 10 people taking care of 1,000 dogs. I guess the dogs went to auction and now the rescuers are in there trying to see what they can do.

"The dogs went to auction." So, for who knows how many of them, they are just being relocated to a continuing life of being exploited puppy-producers, if history is any indication.

 

Kudos to those rescuers who are trying to channel these dogs into real homes and out of the "production line".

[Debbie Meier]

In regard to registries, there are 4 that are advertised in our state breeders directory, American Pet Registry (APR), American Canine Association (ACA), American Kennel Club (AKC) & United All Breed Registry, Inc. (UABR). When talking to people at the state meeting I was told that the AKC inspectors are pretty tough and that the questionable breeders, from a welfare direction, do not register with AKC.

 

As I understand it, the new MO law would apply to everyone that has 10 or more unaltered females but will only be enforced if you are licensed or get caught. Those that have licenses have a deadline to get into compliance, early next year or when their next inspection is conducted if it is after the deadline.

 

For some it will not be cheap to change their current facilities over and then they have to hope that something new does not make them change again such as PUPS, others will need to dump a bunch of dogs to get down to 50. I think that I read somewhere that 1/3 of the current licensed breeders have over 50 dogs, the state has those numbers on record based on the current record keeping requirements.

 

For the breeders that are currently running illegally and unlicensed there is a different deadline to get into compliance, they can operate until they get caught. And when you think about it, what is the penalty for operating without a license? And what checks are in place to catch them?

 

It would be nice to see a grandfather clause helping the breeders that are currently licensed, give them 5-10 years to get into compliance with the new housing laws so long as they are in reasonable compliance with the current regulations. Basically reward them for running above board and then focus on hunting down the breeders that are purposely running under the radar. Doesn't the current MO law state that anyone with 4 or more unaltered dogs needs to secure a license and is subject to the state housing and welfare laws?

 

Oklahoma is in the process of soliciting feedback on their new care laws that are being proposed, same deal there, it's only going to put hardship on the breeders that are licensed, if your running under the radar keep your head low and don't draw attention to yourself, it does not effect you...but, it's really going to suck when you get caught giving people more reason to stay under the radar.

 

Deb

[The Good Shepherd]

I have to ask so

who pays the price for this

the poor dogs