Jump to content


Photo

More on Mo. Puppy Mill Law


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21 bcnewe2

bcnewe2

    If you stumble make it part of the dance!

  • Registered Users
  • 3,955 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Union, MO
  • Interests:Stockdogs, Sheep

Posted 17 April 2011 - 09:41 PM

We are very very small scale breeder, we produce demonstrations and buy and sell our sheep and calves through the breeding/kennel business, last year our operation took in about $12,000


So Deb
Are you saying that if propB stood as it was passed it would have effected your business?
I'm not sure why you seem to be defending this bill being changed if that's what you are doing.

Just trying to gain understanding of your points.

Kristen
 

The world is a magical place...
Full of people waiting to be offended by something!

 

 

 

 


#22 Eileen Stein

Eileen Stein

    Moderator

  • Administrators
  • 4,952 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shady Side, MD, USA

Posted 17 April 2011 - 11:05 PM

But will Prop B's definition of pet be limited to dogs and prop B? Livestock is considered to be domesticated animals


Be limited by whom? Where? When? Prop B by its terms applies only to dogs. It only uses the term "pet" when saying that the law covers those who are breeding dogs and selling their offspring "for use as a pet." But the offspring of dogs are always dogs -- they are not cows or chickens.

If this were really the issue, specious as it is, then the legislature would have just changed or dropped the definition of "pet." It's nothing but a trumped up excuse to contravene the will of the people expressed in the voting booth. If I were a Missouri voter I'd probably be marching on Jefferson City with a "Don't Tread On Me" sign.

#23 Tommy Coyote

Tommy Coyote

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,856 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kansas City, Mo

Posted 18 April 2011 - 09:37 AM

Be limited by whom? Where? When? Prop B by its terms applies only to dogs. It only uses the term "pet" when saying that the law covers those who are breeding dogs and selling their offspring "for use as a pet." But the offspring of dogs are always dogs -- they are not cows or chickens.

If this were really the issue, specious as it is, then the legislature would have just changed or dropped the definition of "pet." It's nothing but a trumped up excuse to contravene the will of the people expressed in the voting booth. If I were a Missouri voter I'd probably be marching on Jefferson City with a "Don't Tread On Me" sign.

People here are pretty upset.

It always seems to come down to the bottom line. The welfare of the animals be damned. Some of these commercial breeders have over 1,000 animals. The breeder in Oberlin, Ks euthanized over 1200.

I don't really think we will be able to shut down the big commercial breeders. I don't know that the state should have the right to limit the number of animals if they are taken care of properly. If they are licensed and inspected on a regular basis. I personally hate the idea of commercial breeders and selling dogs in pets stores but I don't know if should be stopped just because I find it nauseating.

I just wish there was some way to stop the puppy mills where the animals are treated so badly. The opposition is trying to argu that those kinds of puppy mills are illegal operations and the new bill wouldn't affect them anyway. If there was some way that brokers could only purchase dogs for commercial sale from licensed and inspected breeders?

I think I'm not very different from most Missourians. We hate the puppy mills and the neglect and cruelty that seem to be part and parcel of those operations.

#24 Debbie Meier

Debbie Meier

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 2,393 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Alden, Iowa
  • Interests:Pretty much all stockdogs...for now

Posted 18 April 2011 - 11:32 AM

Are you saying that if propB stood as it was passed it would have effected your business?


NO, but, if it was passed here in Iowa, Yes. We would be faced with the decision to either upgrade our facilities or to keep our numbers below 10 breeding age females. I have no intentions on having 10 females for breeding, but more then once we have had 10 breeding aged females on premises. Any of my females that are 6 months old are considered as breeding age and are considered as breeding stock. So basically if the law would have been here we would have already been in violation.

We have housing that does not meet the first of the two sections, we have runs with dog houses and none of our indoor access runs have heat or air conditioning. Our indoor access runs have 6 x 3 (18 square feet, we have large dogloos in some of our indoor areas and the dogloos take up 1/2 of the floor space. Our current indoor pens would not legally accomidate 1 dog, Jake is 38 inches long and would need 30 square feet of indoor housing. Imagine if that housing was imposed on any one that raises or has dogs. I can't support it.

(4) ”Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements” means constant and unfettered access to an indoor enclosure that has a solid floor; is not stacked or otherwise placed on top of or below another animal’s enclosure; is cleaned of waste at least once a day while the dog is outside the enclosure; and does not fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit, or rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit.


(5) ”Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs” means having (1) sufficient indoor space for each dog to turn in a complete circle without any impediment (including a tether); (2) enough indoor space for each dog to lie down and fully extend his or her limbs and stretch freely without touching the side of an enclosure or another dog; (3) at least one foot of headroom above the head of the tallest dog in the enclosure; and (4) at least 12 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog up to 25 inches long; at least 20 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog between 25 and 35 inches long; and at least 30 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog for dogs 35 inches and longer (with the length of the dog measured from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail).


If the law was to be imposed here and if we wanted to keep our current numbers continuing on with our program as planned, allowing us to raise and train our own dogs along with having the flexibility to have 10 breeding aged females, which we have had in the past we would need to build more kennel runs onto our buildings (right now we only have 6) expand our current indoor access areas and we would have to insulate, install furnaces and air conditioning units in 2 maybe three different buildings. The third building would be needed if we elected to not build runs to the north and west, right now all of our runs face the south. If you came to visit here November - March you would understand why we would not want unfettered access runs out to the north or west.

Also, I don't know that our one building that we currently use to raise pups once I move them out of the house would be able to hold anymore then 1 dog, right now I have 2 6 x 3 bay with an aisle. We have heated it on a temporary basis.

So here is the deal, we will be faced with spending alot of money or getting rid of dogs not based on our program or what we can care for but rather based on the law. Doing the upgrades is not going to effect the welfare of our dogs, and in all reality I don't know that I want our dogs to all have heated access during the winter or air conditioning during the summer, they are working dogs and need to be acclimated to the environment that they are working in.

I've not been to many border collie breeders places, but I wonder how many of them would also be effected. The ones I've been to would be in the same situation as us, I don't know of anyone that meets the laid out criteria.

We may as well have a national 10 dog limit for everyone regardless of whether or not the dogs are altered or what type of facility you have.
Posted Image


http://leaningtreebcs.blogspot.com/

"Every poor one you continue to work with equates to a good one that you never get the opportunity to own"- M. Christopher

#25 Tommy Coyote

Tommy Coyote

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,856 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kansas City, Mo

Posted 18 April 2011 - 12:23 PM

One of the places I think the bill really fell down is that not all dogs need all things. I have a friend with yorkies. They don't need access to the outside. Her dogs never go out. They just live in the house with her and they are just fine.

There are breeds that don't need heating and cooling - except in the extreme weather. They need good shelter, clean conditions, lots of fresh water and good food and the chance to get out and exercise often.

What is sickening are the puppy mills that have lots of small breeds that are stuck outside in horrible cages all of the time - rain, freezing weather, storms, heat. That is just plain animal cruelty.

#26 Debbie Meier

Debbie Meier

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 2,393 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Alden, Iowa
  • Interests:Pretty much all stockdogs...for now

Posted 18 April 2011 - 01:03 PM

What is sickening are the puppy mills that have lots of small breeds that are stuck outside in horrible cages all of the time - rain, freezing weather, storms, heat. That is just plain animal cruelty.


I agree, but why is it happening? Especially in MO where it should not be happening based on current welfare laws? From what I can tell it is the same as here in Iowa, they are running under the radar, Prop B is not going to change that, if they are running under the radar now they will continue until they get caught. Plain and simple, they need to be caught and need to be turned in via Bark Alert.

Here is a question, do you know of or, have you seen any of these breeders/dogs first hand that are housing dogs in poor conditions? Who has, and what have they done about it that would directly remedy the situation?

A couple of weeks back a friend, that is possibily going over the state unaltered dog limit due to raising up a few pups, asked me straight out, what benefit would I get by securing a license? None. So, why would she secure a license unless she was in fear of being caught?

There is a law being proposed in MN that would require license numbers to be published on all advertising and websites, IMO, that is worth supporting. Give the breeders a reason to get a license and take away a means of selling without one. Heck, make it a crime for the general public to purchase a dog/puppy from an unlicensed breeder in states that require a license.

ETA: A working dog breeder that I know of that moved to IA from MN boasted about hiding dogs in the basement to evade licensing, right now the breeder is under our state limit but I would expect no less from the person if they found themselves over the limit in the future. When our state inspector was here she told me that she has had breeders flat out lie to her, but she can't do anything about it unless she can see the dogs which would require a complaint.
Posted Image


http://leaningtreebcs.blogspot.com/

"Every poor one you continue to work with equates to a good one that you never get the opportunity to own"- M. Christopher

#27 Crawford Dogs

Crawford Dogs

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 181 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Huxley, IA
  • Interests:Training dogs, hiking, and photography.

Posted 18 April 2011 - 02:13 PM

How many unaltered dogs in Iowa require a license? How many altered dogs or combo require a license? Google can't seem to answer the question.

#28 Debbie Meier

Debbie Meier

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 2,393 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Alden, Iowa
  • Interests:Pretty much all stockdogs...for now

Posted 18 April 2011 - 03:14 PM

It is not easy to find and not many that are advocating for stricter commercial breeders regulations here in Iowa realize that the regulations may apply to themselves or their friends that are breeding dogs. If someone wants to run without a license go for it, I don't care, but realize that supporting what the advocates here in Iowa are pushing may just create issues for yourself if you ever want to raise dogs. A Commercial Breeder is one that has 4 or more unaltered dogs, the state doesn't care about unaltered ones unless you are a rescue, shelter, grooming or training. Unaltered numbers fall under local limits.

A Puppy Mill Bill or Law is imposed on Iowa Commercial Breeders, a Iowa Commercial Breeder is one that has 4 or more unalter dogs, you may only breed one and have one litter of puppies a year, but if you own four or more you are supposed to secure a license and are subject to annual inspections, record keeping and annual onsite vet visit.

http://coolice.legis...ode&ga=83#162.8


6. "Commercial breeder" means a person, engaged in the business of breeding dogs or cats, who sells, exchanges, or leases dogs or cats in return for consideration, or who offers to do so, whether or not the animals are raised, trained, groomed, or boarded by the person. A person who owns or harbors three or fewer breeding males or females is not a commercial breeder. However, a person who breeds or harbors more than three breeding male or female greyhounds for the purposes of using them for pari-mutuel racing shall be considered a commercial breeder irrespective of whether the person sells, leases, or exchanges the greyhounds for consideration or offers to do so.




162.8 COMMERCIAL BREEDER'S LICENSE.

A person shall not operate as a commercial breeder unless the person has obtained a license issued by the secretary or unless the person has obtained a certificate of registration issued by the secretary if the kennel is federally licensed. Application for the license or the certificate shall be made in the manner provided by the secretary. The annual license or the certification period expires one year from date of issue. The license fee is forty dollars per year and the certificate fee is twenty dollars per year. The license may be renewed upon application and payment of the prescribed fee in the manner provided by the secretary if the licensee has conformed to all statutory and regulatory requirements. The certificate may be renewed upon application and payment of the prescribed fee in the manner provided by the secretary.




Here is a link to our welfare law:
www.agriculture.state.ia.us/animalIndustry/pdf/CHAPTER67.pdf
Posted Image


http://leaningtreebcs.blogspot.com/

"Every poor one you continue to work with equates to a good one that you never get the opportunity to own"- M. Christopher

#29 Eileen Stein

Eileen Stein

    Moderator

  • Administrators
  • 4,952 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shady Side, MD, USA

Posted 20 April 2011 - 10:37 PM

NO, but, if it was passed here in Iowa, Yes. We would be faced with the decision to either upgrade our facilities or to keep our numbers below 10 breeding age females. I have no intentions on having 10 females for breeding, but more then once we have had 10 breeding aged females on premises. Any of my females that are 6 months old are considered as breeding age and are considered as breeding stock. So basically if the law would have been here we would have already been in violation.


Deb, I'm just going to say this for what it's worth. If Prop B were passed in Iowa, you would only be required to meet its requirements if you had "custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet." "Covered dogs" are defined as intact dogs more than six months old. But you don't become subject to the law's requirements just by having more than ten intact female dogs. You only become subject to the law's requirements if you have more than ten of those dogs for the purpose of breeding them and selling their offspring as pets. And since you say you have no intention of having 10 females for breeding, then you would not be covered by this law.

I know this will probably have no effect on your thinking, but it is a fact.

#30 Mark Billadeau

Mark Billadeau

    Bill Nye Wannabe

  • Registered Users
  • 2,438 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middletown, MD
  • Interests:science, working dogs, sheep

Posted 21 April 2011 - 08:00 AM

You only become subject to the law's requirements if you have more than ten of those dogs for the purpose of breeding them and selling their offspring as pets. And since you say you have no intention of having 10 females for breeding, then you would not be covered by this law.

So, if you have 10 or more intact females outsiders will automatically know your intentions about breeding them? To me this opens up owners of 10 or more intact females to investigations into your intentions which may or may not be easily defended.

You (a household or farm) have 10 intact female working dogs, some fully trained some young and in training.
You won't breed the young dogs until you know about their working ability.
If you breed any of these females, you'll keep some pups and sell the others.
Are you covered by this proposed law?

There's nothing I believe in more strongly than getting young people interested in science and engineering, for a better tomorrow, for all humankind.

Bill Nye


#31 Eileen Stein

Eileen Stein

    Moderator

  • Administrators
  • 4,952 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shady Side, MD, USA

Posted 21 April 2011 - 11:39 AM

So, if you have 10 or more intact females outsiders will automatically know your intentions about breeding them? To me this opens up owners of 10 or more intact females to investigations into your intentions which may or may not be easily defended.


The burden of proof is on the state to prove all elements of the offense, including intent. Therefore, you don't have to prove your intent not to breed. The state has to prove that your purpose in having these dogs is breeding them and selling their offspring as pets. With regard to each intact female, if you have not bred that dog, and are using the dog for a purpose other than breeding -- sheepdog training, stock management, trialing, etc. -- I cannot see the state wasting any time on such a hopeless loser of a case.

You (a household or farm) have 10 intact female working dogs, some fully trained some young and in training.
You won't breed the young dogs until you know about their working ability.
If you breed any of these females, you'll keep some pups and sell the others.
Are you covered by this proposed law?


Nope, not as you've presented it here.

#32 Mark Billadeau

Mark Billadeau

    Bill Nye Wannabe

  • Registered Users
  • 2,438 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middletown, MD
  • Interests:science, working dogs, sheep

Posted 21 April 2011 - 11:49 AM

While I suspect you're right that the burden of proof is on the authorities I am now spending time, effort, and possible money in defense.

I can see the authorities taking the position of "if you're not going to breed there is no reason the dogs need to be intact".

At least MD's HB 940/SB 839 has changed the wording from "intends to breed any of the dogs" to "sells dogs from six or more litters in a year".

There's nothing I believe in more strongly than getting young people interested in science and engineering, for a better tomorrow, for all humankind.

Bill Nye


#33 Eileen Stein

Eileen Stein

    Moderator

  • Administrators
  • 4,952 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shady Side, MD, USA

Posted 21 April 2011 - 12:50 PM

While I suspect you're right that the burden of proof is on the authorities I am now spending time, effort, and possible money in defense.


No more so than if anyone reported you for anything you were not guilty of. The opponents of this bill say that current laws are not being enforced. Can you really picture any officials going after someone for dogs they haven't even bred when there are so many actual, demonstrable breeders to go after?

I can see the authorities taking the position of "if you're not going to breed there is no reason the dogs need to be intact".


I suppose they could think this in their hearts, but they still have to prove the elements of the offense, which they could not do in the situation you describe. You are specifically allowed under the law to have that many intact dogs, so long as you do not have them for the purpose of breeding them and selling their pups for use as pets.

#34 Katelynn & Gang

Katelynn & Gang

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 788 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Lake Orion, Michigan

Posted 25 April 2011 - 01:11 AM

As much as Iwould love to believe it wouldn't affect any of these small scale quality breeders I believe it will, maybe not this time but next time.

Next it will be a mandatory spay/neuter law unless you do have a licenses and are inspected.

I hate puppy mills but the answer isn't stronger detailed laws. The answer is simply enforcing the current laws. If you can't enforce the current laws with these large mills now, how are you going to enforce new more detailed laws?

If the current laws were harshly enforced today, the money from the violations could employee the much needed man power to make these mega mills either have to comply or shut their doors.

More detailed laws with the same huge lack of funds and man power will do nothing more then what is being done now.
Posted Image

#35 Debbie Meier

Debbie Meier

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 2,393 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Alden, Iowa
  • Interests:Pretty much all stockdogs...for now

Posted 26 April 2011 - 03:39 PM

Maybe I'm misreading the MO application, I don't see anything about exceptions for intact females that you are not breeding, as I read it if you harbor 10 or more intact bitches your SOL: http://mda.mo.gov/an...df/acfa_app.pdf
Posted Image


http://leaningtreebcs.blogspot.com/

"Every poor one you continue to work with equates to a good one that you never get the opportunity to own"- M. Christopher

#36 Debbie Meier

Debbie Meier

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 2,393 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Alden, Iowa
  • Interests:Pretty much all stockdogs...for now

Posted 26 April 2011 - 04:19 PM

The proposed bill in Texas that has many of the working dog breeders down their nervous has these clauses in regard to intact females:

Texas HB 1451

4) "Commercial breeder" means a person who possesses
11 or more adult intact female animals and is engaged in the
business of breeding animals for direct or indirect sale or for
exchange in return for consideration.

(11) "Intact female animal" means a female animal that
has not been spayed and is capable of reproduction.

(16) "Puppy" means a dog less than six months old.




I don't see where a person is going to get anywhere gaining exemption arguing that they have intact females that they don't intend on breeding.
Posted Image


http://leaningtreebcs.blogspot.com/

"Every poor one you continue to work with equates to a good one that you never get the opportunity to own"- M. Christopher

#37 Eileen Stein

Eileen Stein

    Moderator

  • Administrators
  • 4,952 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shady Side, MD, USA

Posted 26 April 2011 - 09:47 PM

Maybe I'm misreading the MO application, I don't see anything about exceptions for intact females that you are not breeding, as I read it if you harbor 10 or more intact bitches your SOL: http://mda.mo.gov/an...df/acfa_app.pdf


I don't see anything in that application that bears out what you're saying here. But in any case, I thought we were talking about Prop B, and what it would require. Prop B has not gone into effect, so this application has nothing to do with Prop B. You can read Prop B here. Under the law enacted by Prop B, Section 273.345.3 would provide:

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog:

(1) Sufficient food and clean water;

(2) Necessary veterinary care;

(3) Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;

(4) Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs;

(5) Regular exercise; and

(6) Adequate rest between breeding cycles.


I don't know what else to say -- it's so plain to me.

#38 Eileen Stein

Eileen Stein

    Moderator

  • Administrators
  • 4,952 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shady Side, MD, USA

Posted 26 April 2011 - 09:52 PM

The proposed bill in Texas that has many of the working dog breeders down their nervous has these clauses in regard to intact females:

Texas HB 1451



I don't see where a person is going to get anywhere gaining exemption arguing that they have intact females that they don't intend on breeding.


I don't either. Under the proposed bill in Texas. Which is not the same as Prop B in Missouri.

Not all proposed measures for dealing with puppy breeding are the same, which is why it seems important to me to decide whether any such measure is a good bill or a bad bill by looking at what it actually says.


ETA: I should have said that under the Texas bill as you've quoted it, I don't see where a person would get anywhere arguing that they are not a "commercial breeder" because they don't intend to breed their intact females. But since the sections you've quoted are only definitions, I don't know what the consequences of being a "commercial breeder" would be under that bill.


And another ETA: Okay, I checked the TX bill. The bill has been amended to remove the definition of "commercial breeder" that you quote, and substitute:

"Dog or cat breeder" means a person who possesses
11 or more adult intact female animals and is engaged in the
business of breeding those animals for direct or indirect sale or
for exchange in return for consideration.

[Emphasis added.]

The addition of the word "those" means that you would only be a breeder under the Act if you were actually breeding 11 or more adult intact female dogs. Another amendment creates a presumption that if you are engaged in the business of breeding, your adult female dogs are being used for breeding, but permits you to demonstrate otherwise, in which case you would not be covered:

Sec. 802.004. PRESUMPTION OF USE FOR BREEDING. For
purposes of this chapter, each adult intact female animal possessed
by a person engaged in the business of breeding animals for direct
or indirect sale or for exchange in return for consideration is
presumed to be used for breeding purposes unless the person
establishes to the satisfaction of the department, based on the
person's breeding records or other evidence reasonably acceptable
to the department, that the animal is not used for breeding.


The text of the current bill can be found here.

#39 Eileen Stein

Eileen Stein

    Moderator

  • Administrators
  • 4,952 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shady Side, MD, USA

Posted 26 April 2011 - 10:26 PM

As much as I would love to believe it wouldn't affect any of these small scale quality breeders I believe it will, maybe not this time but next time.

Next it will be a mandatory spay/neuter law unless you do have a licenses and are inspected.


By "next time," do you mean a law that might be proposed in the future? If so, why not reserve your objections for that law, if you don't see a problem with this law?

I hate puppy mills but the answer isn't stronger detailed laws. The answer is simply enforcing the current laws.


It seems like this is said every time a new law is proposed, but I don't see how it makes sense to say this without knowing what the current laws say, or what the current enforcement procedures are. For example, under current MO law, it's okay to keep dogs in stacked cages with wire floors. If there's no law against it, enforcement is not an issue, because there's nothing to enforce. Under Prop B, it would be unlawful to keep dogs in stacked cages with wire floors, at least for operations large enough to be covered under the law. Keeping dogs on wire floors is a particular concern of mine. I've seen dogs with seriously messed-up paws from being kept on wire flooring -- dogs who had to be carried when taken out for DNA collection, because they would not or could not walk. I'm a simple soul, and to me, having a law that prohibits keeping dogs on wire flooring is better than not having a law that prohibits keeping dogs on wire flooring.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright: All posts and images on this site are protected by copyright, and may not be reproduced or distributed in any way without permission. Banner photo courtesy of Denise Wall, ©2009 CDWall. For further information, contact info@bordercollie.org.