[AngusFangus]

OK. There is a bill proposed in Tennessee to limit the number of non-neutered animals a person may have on their property. I don't have the exact wording, but as I remember it states that no person may have more than 20 non-neutered animals.

I am getting a lot of emails from various people expressing concern about this bill, which is intended to serve as anti-puppy mill legislation.

Someone just emailed me and referenced these clips from an edition of 20/20:

Part 1: www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyjfHjxGxm0

Part 2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWP_wXfkO78&feature=related

What do you guys think about this? They were urging senators and representatives to vote against the bill, or else this might happen.

I am having a hard time seeing the problem. While I think the SPCA rep in the video might be a little heavy-handed, I also don't think that a person really needs 20 breeding animals...? The breeders I can think of on this board don't have nearly that many.

It sounds to me like limiting a person to 20 breeding animals really does just target puppy mills. Am I wrong?

A lot of people at our dog club seem to be concerned about this bill, so maybe I am missing something. I think there is concern that it would affect pet owners, groomers, boarders, etc.

I don't know...I guess it doesn't raise any red flags for me because my dogs are neutered. And I don't have 20. ?

I welcome any comments to help me see different viewpoints about this.

 

[labby]

The problem with these types of bills, they might start out at 20 which seems reasonable. However, they can be dropped to whatever number without a new vote at anyone's whim.

So it might start out at 20, which seems reasonable, then the PETA, HSUS and other AR groups get in and drop it to say 10. Then the next time it's 5, then 2, then 0.

Commercial breeders are already under USDA regulations. They can't enforce those rules and regulations now. Why do we need new laws when the old ones are already there?

 

[labby]

Oh and another thing, why should there be a law against how many dogs, breeding or otherwise you can have, when there isn't one on how many kids a person can have and draw welfare which is OUR government money being used.

 

[RangerMom]

Oh and another thing, why should there be a law against how many dogs, breeding or otherwise you can have, when there isn't one on how many kids a person can have and draw welfare which is OUR government money being used.
__________________

So maybe the law wouldn't need to limit the number of dogs but rather specify the conditions that the dogs are kept in, the way they are treated, etc. Then with proper enforcement, it would result in preventing an excessive number of dogs being kept in horrible conditions.

 

[labby]

The USDA regulations already spell that out.

 

[Dani]

So maybe the law wouldn't need to limit the number of dogs but rather specify the conditions that the dogs are kept in, the way they are treated, etc. Then with proper enforcement, it would result in preventing an excessive number of dogs being kept in horrible conditions.

In a perfect world. They already fall under regulations that are not being upheld.

 

[HersheyK's Dad]

Have to agree with Labby.

Not related to breeding, but the same issue of trying to pass more regulations when authorities are failing to enforce existing regulations that should accomplish the same goal. In the case at hand this had to do with dogs being allowed off lead in specific areas if under voice control. Animal Control recommended changing regulations to not allow any off-lead anywhere because of the number of violations and aggressive incidents annually. When looked into with more detail, there were zero incidents originating from those area where dogs can be off lead if under voice control. All incidents were reported from areas where dogs are not allowed off lead at any time under current regulations.

 

[TangerineFizz]

So it might start out at 20, which seems reasonable, then the PETA, HSUS and other AR groups get in and drop it to say 10. Then the next time it's 5, then 2, then 0.

That's how I think of it - in fact, if any of us want pets in our lives in the future, or want our kids/grandkids to have pets, we need to vote hard against this sucker.

Otherwise, that number, like Labby said, is going to go from 20 to 10 to 5 to 2 then 0, and what do we do then?

That's probably why your club friends are so upset about it Connie - this is a subverse way towards an end that spells No Pets For Anyone.

 

[AngusFangus]

Yikes. I really hadn't thought of it this way!

 

[labby]

These types of laws always look good because we're all against puppy mills, but in the end everyone will get screwed by them. Most of them are just AR agendas dressed up to look like they're against just puppy mills.

"Well if you don't have 20 breeding dogs, then what are you worried about?"

That's a common argument for this sort of thing. Well I don't have 20 breeding dogs, but what's next? 2? 0? That's their true agenda. Once you let them get their foot in the door, the rest of us are screwed.