On Advocates hope for breeding rules

Posted on July 9 at 12:03 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

No, "interested", I am not a breeder, never have been and never will be. I have been involved in dogs for 50+ years as a pet owner, a trainer, a dog sports competitor, canine search and rescue. The problem that I have with the current breeder licensing bill is the Law of Unintended Consequences. If people don't start to look into the future, and envision the disasters that can happen to law abiding citizens of Wisconsin when the details of this proposed law rear their ugly heads, we are in for a bad time, where people look around and say "how did THIS happen?!" There is nothing wrong with licensing - we all do it with drivers license, dog license, raffle license, and on and on. A HOME BASED hobby breeder is an entirely different situation than what people call "puppy mills". Even though we are licensed to drive, and we must have a safe vehicle, take a test, that DOES NOT give a law enforcement officer the right to pull us over and search our vehicle without cause. As long as we obey traffic laws and registration rules, we are safe from intrusion into our privacy in our cars. If this proposed bill had a clearly defined provision to protect people from false accusations, frivolous law suits, or harrassment it would be more acceptable. What if you breed Chihuahuas for show and pet, all dogs are licensed and you are a law abiding citizen with a dog show hobby, but your new neighbor doesn't like your fence, or something about you personally, or just hates dogs, that neighbor could call animal control on a bogus charge, just in case they found a certain condition in your home that was reported, like an elderly, infirm dog that 'looks sick'. Say I am a licensed breeder - just the other day one of my dogs was vomiting, so the vet restricted water for that dog. I had to pick up all water bowls so that the sick one wouldn't get sicker, and ration water for another. An unannounced inspector would say "not adequate water available" and fine me for protecting my dogs in MY HOME! Home breeders deal with this kind of situation regularly, especially if they rescue their breed. If you believe that an animal control officer who sees $$$$ for his department is going to overlook anything, you are kidding yourself. He gets paid for each inspection.
I would have no problem with this bill if the number of dogs goes up to a more sensible level, if there was state level protection against bogus complaints, and if Home Breeders were inspected only if there is reasonable suspicion that there is a crime being committed.
We all have the same goals here, folks. Let's stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater in our emotional zeal to save the puppies. Regulating high volume breeders is a very good idea, but we must be careful of how we do it so as to not eliminate our best source for top quality healthy pets, or make these dogs so expensive that only the very wealthy can own them - that Law of Unintended Consequences I mentioned.

On Advocates hope for breeding rules

Posted on July 8 at 12:24 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

I am very familiar with this bill, and believe very strongly that there is a major flaw that will result in negative unintended consequences for the providers of the very best quality family and working dogs in the state: the hobby and show breeders who raise litters in their homes. The big flaw is in the number 25 [or three litters, whichever is greater]. No one who raises and finds appropriate homes for 25 to 50 puppies a year is making money, PERIOD. Not if the proper care is given, with health checks, screening, veterinary care, stud fees, show expenses, care of dogs until they go to another home. The problem with this bill is that the number is so low that it will effectively shut down the very people we NEED to support, the people who strive for excellence, health, temperament and who raise puppies in their home, with the best socialization, the best diet and vet care. I train Search and Rescue dogs, and I, or anyone I know in the field of SAR or competitive dog sports, is not going to be shopping for a new puppy from what is commonly called a "puppy mill", which is a heart-tugging euphemism for a SUBSTANDARD BREEDER, a commercial business that cuts corners everywhere it can to be profitable. To these awful places, a small license fee and the occasional fine is just a minor cost of doing business. So, this bill, in reality, will NOT give a single animal a better existence. It will simply license all breeders. The problem comes in when you include home-bred show, hobby and hunting dog breeders in with the commercial for-profit businesses. We also have to realize that in many communities across the state it is illegal to run a business out of your home. A hobby is not illegal, but as soon as a breeder buys a license, they are automatically breaking a local law. Cut back, move, or get out of breeding will be their only choices. That is NOT GOOD NEWS for anyone who wants a healthy family pet, hunting dog or working dog.

There are already plenty of county ordinances that should be able address the 'problem' people, the collectors, hoarders, mentally ill or lazy and slovenly people, or an elderly person who is in over their head. A licensing program will really have no positive effect on this problem, which may fall into this number. Change the number to at least 100 annually, and there will be a much more efficient and effective program.