Just Labradors banner

So I was thinking more about all of the breeding legislation.....

3K views 75 replies 19 participants last post by  imported_Page 
#1 ·
And tried to think of it as less of breeding bans, because you're right, bans don't work. I think we need to consider "population control". I was talking with some friends about hunting and about how they have to buy permits to hunt and pass a basic gun safety class before they are able to get a permit.

Then I got thinking, why couldn't we translate this into companion animals? Anyone can own a pet, but the right to breed would need to be bought through a breeding permit. People need to adhere to a minimum of standards, pass an educational class of some sort and there would only be a certain number of permits available on a year to year basis. There could be different classifications of breeders, ie, commercial, show/working breeders, service dog breeders, and pet breeders. There would only be so many issued of each category, and each breeder would be subjected to inspection. That way we can try and control the amount of new dogs coming into the system, try and encourage responsible breeders and still provide options for those people who want purebreds but can't afford a $900 dog. We are not saying that people can't breed, we are merely limiting the amount that can at any point.

Would that be bad? Just a thought to mull around. I don't want to get into the discussion of enforcement and stuff, I would just like honest feedback on the idea. Thanks!
 
See less See more
#5 ·
It is an interesting idea. I know there are breeding licenses for horses, but for the registry I worked for it was only so they could be bred by embryo transfer. It was the method they were legislating (for lack of a better term) not so much the actual breeding. Though I guess in a way they were watching the breeding too, since they only allowed three foals out of the same mare to be registered each year.

Anyway, a breeding license could be good. The dogs in question could be DNA typed, puppies checked for parentage to verify that the license was adhered to, etc. To obtain the license the parents would have to be health checked, etc. The breeders would have to meet standards and would only be able to have certain #'s of litters per year.

Might work.
 
#6 ·
Dunno

I understand why you propose this, but I don't think I would like to be "told" that I could or could not breed one of my dogs. I am pretty sure my own 'requirements" to breed one of my dogs far exceeds anything else that a "governing body" could come up with.

Who and/or what would determine who has the right to breed, even if all the requirements had been met? A lottery? Long-time breeders over newbies?
 
#7 ·
Yes, It is a VERY BAD IDEA :mad:

It will not work for many reasons.

The main reason is because the reasonable breeders are already doing this. We already do all the clearances. We take back our pups at anytime for any reason. We are not the problem and should not be punished because of the irresponsible breeders out there.

The puppymills and BYB will still breed and just not register. They will go underground (most are anyway).

In my state there is already laws on the books to regulate puppy mills. They just need to enforce the laws already on the books.


I really think the main problem is with puppy buyers and not breeders. We need to educate the public better on Responsible Pet Ownership.

We also to need make shelters more responsible for there decision. In my state they put to sleep way too many cats and dogs because they are too LAZY or too Cheap to even try to find homes for the dogs and cats. And yes the shelters in the town I work in were evaluate by an outside organization and flunked big time.

I will also say I have a friend who's in-law sits on the Supreme Court in their state and says that most of these new laws can not be upheld in a court of law.

Dayna
 
#8 ·
I think it would work. Germany has breed warden...they are in charge of what dog gets to breed. There are test and such for your dog to pass. Overall in America it always leads back to a money thing. If someone can makes lots of money on it then it will be done.
 
#9 ·
Hmm. I think it's a great idea personally, but enforcement would be your big downfall. I mean, people could just breed their dog, and call it an accident if they got caught. :-\

I dunno, I think that there are so many simple things that could be done that could make a huge difference, but until the mindset of society changes, enforcement and support are going to be huge killers. I find it difficult now to explain why I am so against the breeding of pet dogs in a way that folks in the general population who aren't "into" dogs as I am can understand.

Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but I just doubt that the general public would react well to this stuff. A lot of them get behind the mandatory spay/neuter stuff because that's very easy to comprehend, you know?

Just brainstorming. I hope that people would be able to get behind stuff like this, but I just don't know.
 
#10 ·
Hmmmm tough issue. I think more of the problem lies with pet owners than breeders...who are obviously being kept in business by consumer demand. Maybe we should send the potential puppy/dog owner through an educational class or two.

I'm not sure what sort of regulations, if any, are put on pet shops who sell puppies from puppy mills/BYB's, but it can't be many. Being that over a half a million dogs are sold out of pet shops each year, this obviously contributes greatly to the overpopulation of pets.

Having breeders apply for a permit and go through educational classes seems like unfair punishment to a problem mainly caused by BYB's and people that throw their dogs into shelters for stupid reasons.
 
#11 ·
Dani I think it's a great idea. I don't think the mandatory spay/neuter will work (who's gonna run around and feel for testicles?) - and it seems you've presented a viable alternative.

I think we need to move higher "in the food chain" than the consumer, and up to the breeder as you've suggested. Breeders are a smaller group than consumers, and thus easier to police. Those breeders who are legitimate would pass and get a permit, those who aren't (hopefully, in a perfect world) wouldn't. The cost of the license would obviously just get passed onto the consumer of the purebred puppies, so there should be no complaining about that.

Dayna said:
I really think the main problem is with puppy buyers and not breeders. We need to educate the public better on Responsible Pet Ownership.

We also to need make shelters more responsible for there decision. In my state they put to sleep way too many cats and dogs because they are too LAZY or too Cheap to even try to find homes for the dogs and cats. And yes the shelters in the town I work in were evaluate by an outside organization and flunked big time.
Just a question: have you ever worked in a shelter? Volunteered there for an extended period of time? I have no doubt that some shelters aren't doing the greatest job but to say shelters are the big part of the problem and just being lazy is no different than the PETA people calling all breeders irresponsible and the reason for the pet overpopulation problem.
 
#12 ·
yellojakesmom said:
Just a question: have you ever worked in a shelter? Volunteered there for an extended period of time? I have no doubt that some shelters aren't doing the greatest job but to say shelters are the big part of the problem and just being lazy is no different than the PETA people calling all breeders irresponsible and the reason for the pet overpopulation problem.
I'm way out of my depth here and am in no position to make recommendations. But just a quick comment on this: I think the people who are trying to reform shelters toward 100% no-kill like Nathan Winograd (whom I respect very much) make a mistake when they give the impression that shelters kill so many animals because shelter people are lazy or uncreative. It seems to me that the point they're making is more important and complex than that--that the shelter *system* is broken and needs to be rethought. It's not just a matter of getting better people into the same system. If I understand Winograd, he makes the point that spay/neuter goes up, kill rates go down, and adoption rates go up when you reform the system to

--raise a lot of money
--offer more free and easy spay/neuter, or even pay people to s/n their pets
--make it easier for *good* people to adopt
--make it easier for rescues to work with shelters
--do aggressive trap/neuter/release with feral populations

etc. None of this requires new laws, but it does require a lot of money. If Winograd and his supporters stopped saying that shelter directors were the problem, and started saying that we all have a stake in fixing the system, then he'd probably get more people on board.

I don't know if that's right; I'm just trying to reproduce what I understand the position to be. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
#13 ·
Dayna said:
Yes, It is a VERY BAD IDEA :mad:

It will not work for many reasons.

The main reason is because the reasonable breeders are already doing this. We already do all the clearances. We take back our pups at anytime for any reason. We are not the problem and should not be punished because of the irresponsible breeders out there.

The puppymills and BYB will still breed and just not register. They will go underground (most are anyway).

In my state there is already laws on the books to regulate puppy mills. They just need to enforce the laws already on the books.


I really think the main problem is with puppy buyers and not breeders. We need to educate the public better on Responsible Pet Ownership.

We also to need make shelters more responsible for there decision. In my state they put to sleep way too many cats and dogs because they are too LAZY or too Cheap to even try to find homes for the dogs and cats. And yes the shelters in the town I work in were evaluate by an outside organization and flunked big time.

I will also say I have a friend who's in-law sits on the Supreme Court in their state and says that most of these new laws can not be upheld in a court of law.

Dayna
If you already follow the rules then why is it a bad idea? You have nothing to worry about yet your against it.
 
#14 ·
allprolab said:
Dayna said:
Yes, It is a VERY BAD IDEA :mad:

It will not work for many reasons.

The main reason is because the reasonable breeders are already doing this. We already do all the clearances. We take back our pups at anytime for any reason. We are not the problem and should not be punished because of the irresponsible breeders out there.

The puppymills and BYB will still breed and just not register. They will go underground (most are anyway).

In my state there is already laws on the books to regulate puppy mills. They just need to enforce the laws already on the books.


I really think the main problem is with puppy buyers and not breeders. We need to educate the public better on Responsible Pet Ownership.

We also to need make shelters more responsible for there decision. In my state they put to sleep way too many cats and dogs because they are too LAZY or too Cheap to even try to find homes for the dogs and cats. And yes the shelters in the town I work in were evaluate by an outside organization and flunked big time.

I will also say I have a friend who's in-law sits on the Supreme Court in their state and says that most of these new laws can not be upheld in a court of law.

Dayna
If you already follow the rules then why is it a bad idea? You have nothing to worry about yet your against it.
Probably because she would have to pay for permits and go through the hassle of paperwork/applying...
 
#15 ·
Tia said:
allprolab said:
Dayna said:
Yes, It is a VERY BAD IDEA :mad:

It will not work for many reasons.

The main reason is because the reasonable breeders are already doing this. We already do all the clearances. We take back our pups at anytime for any reason. We are not the problem and should not be punished because of the irresponsible breeders out there.

The puppymills and BYB will still breed and just not register. They will go underground (most are anyway).

In my state there is already laws on the books to regulate puppy mills. They just need to enforce the laws already on the books.


I really think the main problem is with puppy buyers and not breeders. We need to educate the public better on Responsible Pet Ownership.

We also to need make shelters more responsible for there decision. In my state they put to sleep way too many cats and dogs because they are too LAZY or too Cheap to even try to find homes for the dogs and cats. And yes the shelters in the town I work in were evaluate by an outside organization and flunked big time.

I will also say I have a friend who's in-law sits on the Supreme Court in their state and says that most of these new laws can not be upheld in a court of law.

Dayna
If you already follow the rules then why is it a bad idea? You have nothing to worry about yet your against it.
Probably because she would have to pay for permits and go through the hassle of paperwork/applying...
And that's really the whole issue here. People who are not responsible pet owners are the ones this law is going after. Responsible pet owners should be for this bill.
 
#16 ·
Dayna said:
I really think the main problem is with puppy buyers and not breeders. We need to educate the public better on Responsible Pet Ownership.
Then, tell me how to do that. And tell me how you are going to assist the movement. I am involved in brainstorming for my county, because eventually, there will be proposals banning breeding...so I am coming up with alternatives that does not ban people from breeding, it just puts some standards into place and still allows breeding but keeps the numbers at a certain point. Yes, I know that reputable breeders are doing this already...the point is to educate others to try and strive for that level as well.

I am sick of this "we've always done it this way" mentality. IT'S NOT WORKING. We need to find alternative options.

I don't deer hunt, so I don't buy a license. What is so bad about having an idea of how many breeders are out there producing what breeds?
 
#17 ·
Dani said:
Dayna said:
I really think the main problem is with puppy buyers and not breeders. We need to educate the public better on Responsible Pet Ownership.
Then, tell me how to do that. And tell me how you are going to assist the movement. I am involved in brainstorming for my county, because eventually, there will be proposals banning breeding...so I am coming up with alternatives that does not ban people from breeding, it just puts some standards into place and still allows breeding but keeps the numbers at a certain point. Yes, I know that reputable breeders are doing this already...the point is to educate others to try and strive for that level as well.

I am sick of this "we've always done it this way" mentality. IT'S NOT WORKING. We need to find alternative options.

I don't deer hunt, so I don't buy a license. What is so bad about having an idea of how many breeders are out there producing what breeds?
I'm gonna ask you to marry me.
 
#18 ·
allprolab said:
If you already follow the rules then why is it a bad idea? You have nothing to worry about yet your against it.
It is a bad idea because this kind of legislation has been proposed before and it almost always includes a steep registration fee each year for a breeding permit and in most cases a fee for each intact/breeding animal on the premises as well. This means that the breeders who are already following the rules would all go bankrupt. The only breeders who could afford the licenses are the puppy mills. The ones who don't compete, don't do as many clearances, don't get the best care for their bitches and pups, don't breed to the better stud dogs, the ones who are only in it for the profit.

Take a look at the shelters....it's not the responsible breeders causing the problems. They already play by the rules and they are the only ones who will be penalized if anything like this ever passes.

I wish there was a way to find out where the majority of shelter dogs come from. No offense to shelter dogs because I know they are all wonderful, but I have rarely seen one looking like it came from a reputable Sheltie, Poodle or Lab breeder. Most are dumped by people who bought a dog in a pet store on a whim or out of the paper for $100.

I agree with Dayna. We need better owner education. This is why reputable breeders and rescues interview homes so well. To give the dog a better shot. Where do you think all of the people go who fail the breeder/rescue interviews? To the paper or the pet store to buy a puppy mill or byb pup with more questionable temperment/trainability.

This is America and I fear that we are going crazy with goverment intervention. Punish the offenders after they offend, but don't punish the ones who are doing it right with expensive preventative legislation.
 
#19 ·
Page said:
allprolab said:
If you already follow the rules then why is it a bad idea? You have nothing to worry about yet your against it.
It is a bad idea because this kind of legislation has been proposed before and it almost always includes a steep registration fee each year for a breeding permit and in most cases a fee for each intact/breeding animal on the premises as well. This means that the breeders who are already following the rules would all go bankrupt. The only breeders who could afford the licenses are the puppy mills. The ones who don't compete, don't do as many clearances, don't get the best care for their bitches and pups, don't breed to the better stud dogs, the ones who are only in it for the profit.
Sure, it's all for profit. I mean there's not low cost spay/neuter programs out there or anything. Again, for the 094849-3094-4382903 time, if you are a proper pet owner you don't have to do anything. And fees for breeders. Um..WHO CARES???
 
#20 ·
theoconbrio said:
yellojakesmom said:
Just a question: have you ever worked in a shelter? Volunteered there for an extended period of time? I have no doubt that some shelters aren't doing the greatest job but to say shelters are the big part of the problem and just being lazy is no different than the PETA people calling all breeders irresponsible and the reason for the pet overpopulation problem.
I'm way out of my depth here and am in no position to make recommendations. But just a quick comment on this: I think the people who are trying to reform shelters toward 100% no-kill like Nathan Winograd (whom I respect very much) make a mistake when they give the impression that shelters kill so many animals because shelter people are lazy or uncreative. It seems to me that the point they're making is more important and complex than that--that the shelter *system* is broken and needs to be rethought. It's not just a matter of getting better people into the same system. If I understand Winograd, he makes the point that spay/neuter goes up, kill rates go down, and adoption rates go up when you reform the system to

--raise a lot of money
--offer more free and easy spay/neuter, or even pay people to s/n their pets
--make it easier for *good* people to adopt
--make it easier for rescues to work with shelters
--do aggressive trap/neuter/release with feral populations

etc. None of this requires new laws, but it does require a lot of money. If Winograd and his supporters stopped saying that shelter directors were the problem, and started saying that we all have a stake in fixing the system, then he'd probably get more people on board.

I don't know if that's right; I'm just trying to reproduce what I understand the position to be. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I think you're absolutely right. The shelters in Philadelphia had a unbelievably high kill rate in the late 1990s, a new director took over, the veterinary school at Penn is integrated in spaying the dogs (low cost to the shelter, students do it for free third year as surgery practice) and a diligent TNR program for feral cats, plus huge low-cost/no-cost vaccination clinics and the kill rate is lower than the national average (bot as low as NYC, but still pretty low). If every shelter could be run like that it would be great, it's just channeling the funds that way and then getting the right people in charge (I think a lot of shelter directors are over-worked, under-trained and under-compensated, but doing the best with the limited "stuff" they have).

What I think the biggest problem is - the shelters are government run (or gov't contracted humane societies), and we all know that's not efficient ;)
 
#22 ·
Page said:
It is a bad idea because this kind of legislation has been proposed before and it almost always includes a steep registration fee each year for a breeding permit and in most cases a fee for each intact/breeding animal on the premises as well. This means that the breeders who are already following the rules would all go bankrupt. The only breeders who could afford the licenses are the puppy mills. The ones who don't compete, don't do as many clearances, don't get the best care for their bitches and pups, don't breed to the better stud dogs, the ones who are only in it for the profit.
I have two honest-to-God questions, and I'm not trying to hate on the breeders (my guy came from a breeder).

1. Breeders on this board tend to say they never make money on dogs, they don't breed for profit, etc. Why such a big upset about the money then? If you're already in the red then why not own fewer dogs or budget differently like other businesses do when costs rise?

2. Why not do like most every other business on the planet and pass the increased cost onto the consumer? So if you pay $1000/year to breed your dogs, then you divide that up per puppy and add that onto the price. It seems like a relatively simple solution to me, why wouldn't it work?
 
#23 ·
Canula2000 said:
I think it would work. Germany has breed warden...they are in charge of what dog gets to breed. There are test and such for your dog to pass. Overall in America it always leads back to a money thing. If someone can makes lots of money on it then it will be done.
Can you tell me who exactly will profit from this? Most shelters will fix an animal for next to nothing. Why? Because they want to help control the population. They will not get rich from this. Think about how many extra people they'll have to hire. The city will make more money, but is that really a bad thing? Good god, L.A. is so freakin nasty they should save up for some bulldozers and knock the place down.
 
#24 ·
yellojakesmom said:
Page said:
It is a bad idea because this kind of legislation has been proposed before and it almost always includes a steep registration fee each year for a breeding permit and in most cases a fee for each intact/breeding animal on the premises as well. This means that the breeders who are already following the rules would all go bankrupt. The only breeders who could afford the licenses are the puppy mills. The ones who don't compete, don't do as many clearances, don't get the best care for their bitches and pups, don't breed to the better stud dogs, the ones who are only in it for the profit.
I have two honest-to-God questions, and I'm not trying to hate on the breeders (my guy came from a breeder).

1. Breeders on this board tend to say they never make money on dogs, they don't breed for profit, etc. Why such a big upset about the money then? If you're already in the red then why not own fewer dogs or budget differently like other businesses do when costs rise?

2. Why not do like most every other business on the planet and pass the increased cost onto the consumer? So if you pay $1000/year to breed your dogs, then you divide that up per puppy and add that onto the price. It seems like a relatively simple solution to me, why wouldn't it work?
*high five*
 
#25 ·
yellojakesmom said:
1. Breeders on this board tend to say they never make money on dogs, they don't breed for profit, etc. Why such a big upset about the money then? If you're already in the red then why not own fewer dogs or budget differently like other businesses do when costs rise?

2. Why not do like most every other business on the planet and pass the increased cost onto the consumer? So if you pay $1000/year to breed your dogs, then you divide that up per puppy and add that onto the price. It seems like a relatively simple solution to me, why wouldn't it work?
That's the first HUGE misconception, that breeding dogs is a business for profit to reputable breeders, it is a hobby that sucks most if not all of your extra money down the drain. It is a business to puppy mills and a hobby to good breeders.

So if you pay $1000/year to breed your dogs, then you divide that up per puppy and add that onto the price.
LOL. $1000 a year??? I'm sorry but that is hilarious. Here is a clip from someone on another board I visit who recently posted the expenses she had on her newest litter.

1. Stud fee $1000.00
2. Semen preparation $132.50
3. Semen shipping $250.00
4. Swabs & progesterone $139.00
5. Ultrasound $88.00
6. AI $368.00
7. Xray $85.00
8. C-section $1166.00
9. Dew claws $120.00
10.Puppyshots $120.00
11. Worming $35.00
12. Pup food $150.00
13. Carpet for whelp box $50.00
14. Lunch time helper $200.00
15. Crate $95.00
16.Puppy meds from case of runs $56.00

TOTAL $4054.50

If you take the grand total and divide it by the 8 weeks they were here, you can make a whopping $506.75 per week to supplement your income! HAHAHAHAHAH! Now take that $506.75 and take time off work, and gas to get to them, and whatever other minor expenses minor toys and such, and figure out what the tru profit is..... Uh huh.....
...and that is a best case scenario. A friend of mine bred a litter, paid the stud fee, had the progesterone tests, paid to have the semen shipped across the country and inserted by a vet, paid for the ultrasounds, x-rays, and the ***** only had 2 live puppies. She kept them both as show prospects for over 6 mos and when one began to show less promise she placed him into a home without charging a fee because it was such a great home.

The point here is that reputable breeders breed for themselves to compete with the best dogs.

Now figure in the yearly cost for CERF (usually 20 to do and another fee to register findings), the cost for OFA X-rays (a few hundred bucks) and Optigen (which is about $200-300) before a dog can even be cleared for breeding.

This year is only 5 1/2 weeks old and I have already spent $80 on yearly CERFS, more than $600 on entry fees for shows, not to mention 5 days in a hotel in Texas for shows ($650), gas to and from Dallas, Glen Rose and Pine Bluff (have not even looked at those receipts yet - we'll be very conservative and say $200). Leo goes to the vet tomorrow for blood tests for Optigen which will cost me about $350 by the time I figure in the vet cost and optigens.

Most breeders are also serious competitors and they don't breed just any dog, they breed Champions. A very conservative estimate for the cost of finishing a dog (getting a CH) is $1000 per point. It takes 15 points to finish so that's approximately $15,000 a champion.

Reputable breeders are not in this for the money, they are in it because it is their hobby and like any hobby it can and usually will drain your funds substancially.

If I add the other breeder's numbers to my very conservative numbers I come up with $20,934. Let's say 6 puppies were born and I decide to keep only 1 (many times breeders will keep 2). That leaves 5 puppies to sell. That means the pups in this litter will sell for 4186.80 a piece if a breeder passes that expense on to the customer.

Anyone want one of my puppies? God forbid there is only one born. :eek:

I have already spent more than $20,000 if you count last year and this year on the big things, that does not count the little things such as toys, treats, leashes, poop bags, water bowls etc. Only one of my boys has ever been bred and I collected a whopping $400. Woo Hoo!! I would love to breed my own litter in the next 5 years but I need to get myself financially prepared first. It is not about the money.

How many people out there fly airplanes, or travel a lot, or build model cars, or collect rare objects. True HOBBY breeders lose a heckuva lot more money than we will ever make back.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top