The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: MICHIGAN: Breeder bill introduced - OPPOSE!! This affects everyone!

  1. #1
    Senior Member Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    238

    Default MICHIGAN: Breeder bill introduced - OPPOSE!! This affects everyone!

    Michigan Breeder Bill Introduced

    [Thursday, September 04, 2008]
    Yesterday, Representative Bill Caul of Mt. Pleasant introduced Michigan House Bill 6395, which proposes to strictly regulate virtually all responsible dog breeders. It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog breeders in Michigan contact the members of the House Agriculture Committee, which currently has cognizance of the bill, and their elected Representatives and express their vehement opposition to this bill.

    The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.

    If adopted, HB 6395 would:

    Define anyone who sells or offers for sale more than two dogs per year, or more than one litter of dogs per year, as a "pet seller."
    Mandate that those who qualify as pet sellers to acquire an annual pet seller license from their county animal control shelter at a cost of $200/year.
    Require an applicant for a pet seller license to submit his or her fingerprints with a license application for a criminal history and FBI background check.
    Give discretion to county animal control shelters to deny applications for pet seller licenses, regardless of outcome of background investigation.
    Call for pet sellers to comply with administrative rules regarding housing that will be financially detrimental to responsible breeders who operate out of their homes.
    WHAT YOU CAN DO:

    Michigan residents should contact the members of the House Agriculture Committee listed below and their elected Representatives and express their strong opposition to this onerous legislation.

    Michigan House Agriculture Committee:

    Representative Jeff Mayes, Chairman
    S1285 House Office Building
    P.O. Box 30014
    Lansing, MI 48909-7514
    Fax: 517-373-8881
    Phone: 517-373-0158
    jeffmayes@house.mi.gov

    Representative Barb Byrum, Majority Vice-Chair
    S1086 House Office Building
    P.O. Box 30014
    Lansing, MI 48909-7514
    Fax: 517-373-9430
    Phone: 517-373-0587
    barbbyrum@house.mi.gov

    Representative Kathy Angerer
    S0989 House Office Building
    P.O. Box 30014
    Lansing, MI 48909-7514
    Fax: 517-373-7757
    Phone: 517-373-1792
    kathyangerer@house.mi.gov

    Representative Terry L. Brown
    S1188 House Office Building
    P.O. Box 30014
    Lansing, MI 48909-7514
    Fax: 517-373-9852
    Phone: 517-373-0476
    terrybrown@house.mi.gov

    Representative Kathleen Law
    S0787 House Office Building
    P.O. Box 30014
    Lansing, MI 48909-7514
    Fax: 517-373-5922
    Phone: 517-373-0855
    kathleenlaw@house.mi.gov

    Representative Gabe Leland
    S0689 House Office Building
    P.O. Box 30014
    Lansing, MI 48909-7514
    Fax: 517-373-5985
    Phone: 517-373-6990
    gabeleland@house.mi.gov

    Representative Joel Sheltrown
    S1387 House Office Building
    P.O. Box 30014
    Lansing, MI 48909-7514
    Fax: 517-373-5495
    Phone: 517-373-3817
    joelsheltrown@house.mi.gov

    Representative Howard Walker
    S1388 House Office Building
    P.O. Box 30014
    Lansing, MI 48909-7514
    Fax: 517-373-9420
    Phone: 517-373-1766
    howardwalker@house.mi.gov

    Representative Neal Nitz
    N1097 House Office Building
    P.O. Box 30014
    Lansing, MI 48909-7514
    Fax: 517-373-5918
    Phone: 517-373-1796
    nealnitz@house.mi.gov

    Representative Richard Ball
    S1189 House Office Building
    P.O. Box 30014
    Lansing, MI 48909-7514
    Fax: 517-373-7937
    Phone: 517-373-0841
    richardball@house.mi.gov

    Representative Arlan B. Meekhof
    N1193 House Office Building
    P.O. Box 30014
    Lansing, MI 48909-7514
    Fax: 517-373-9830
    Phone: 517-373-0838
    arlanbmeekhof@house.mi.gov

    To find your Michigan State Representative, click here.

    For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
    Gina
    *~*~*~*~*~*~

  2. #2
    Senior Member Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    238

    Default

    I guess no one on this board lives in Michigan?
    Gina
    *~*~*~*~*~*~

  3. #3
    Senior Member TroyFeeken's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Fargo, ND
    Posts
    1,132

    Default

    Obviously there must be more to this than what's posted... If I lived in Michigan I don't think I'd be overly against this bill. A fee to become licensed in the state and a background check and regulations about housing these animals.

    Yes the fee is $200, but don't you think that would allow them to shut down mills better and much more legally? Keep the people that have 2 dogs from breeding them thinking they're going to make some money if they are required to be licensed.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Boondux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bemidji, MN
    Posts
    1,718

    Default

    That's true, Troy.
    Last edited by Boondux; 09-05-2008 at 04:19 PM.
    Carrie Carlson

    Carlsons Harley Davidson CGC "Harley"
    and the corginess...
    Ebonwald's Blazing A Trail "Scout" RIP good buddy...
    UKC CH Ebonwald’s Debts Of The Heart "Daphne” (AKC major pointed)

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Elgin, TX
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Ah, did you not see the part about fingerprinting, and criminal and FBI background checks? Since when are responsible breeders considered possible criminals?

    Animal Control can decide to NOT give you the license? Then what do you do with your well bred litter of 8 out of the top FC stud and FC bitch? Are you now a criminal because you have 8 puppies to sell without a license?

    Any time licenses/permits are given they can also be taken away, and for no other reason than "they" have decided to stop giving them out. This is an AR ploy used all the time.

    For those of you who are not breeders - this affects you as well. Where are you going to get your next puppy from?

    Now do you think this bill is good?
    Darlene
    Goldust Labs

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    3,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TroyFeeken View Post
    Keep the people that have 2 dogs from breeding them thinking they're going to make some money if they are required to be licensed.
    The enforcement of this should be a function of the marketplace and public education. The government has no business deciding that this or that person should not breed dogs.

    Eric

  7. #7
    Senior Member Kevin Eskam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pierce, Colorado
    Posts
    964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blakegober View Post
    If we let the market decide than the same uneducated folks that buy their dog or cat at a pet store are continuing the problem. Most consumers don't even realize that buying a dog at a pet store does not mean it is a quality animal. They see the AKC registration as a symbol that they are not getting a "puppy mill" dog. I think we do need regulation around this b/c consumers don't do as much research as most people here do and therefore don't consider the source of their new pet. On a side note we let the market regulate the housing industry and the same thing happend, uneducated consumers were prayed on by bad businesses. For the market to regulate the industry you have to assume most buyers are well educated informed people who will put the "bad" business out of business by not spending their money with them. This is obviously not the case b/c the average american consumer does things on impulse w/o actually thinking or planning. Just my opinion. This could become a discusion on just about any type of industry in capitalistic society.

    It wont effect the puppy mills at all, and any time you let the government regulate your business you might as well bend over and kiss your Arse goodbye because once they get there foot in the door they will keep adding laws and adding fees until your business is gone!!!

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    552

    Default

    It amazes me that some dog-savvy folks have such a poor understanding of these kinds of bills. Please see the post from this morning about the situation in Houston. Why should responsible breeders suffer because of puppy mills, and who is the government to "educate" the market? These campaigns are all the work of PeTA and HSUS.

    The Michigan bill not only requires fingerprinting, background check, an extra $200 fee or $500 fee (in some states they've suggested that PER INTACT ANIMAL) -- which can be raised as the governing body sees fit. Also in Michigan you can be turned down for a "pet seller" license (nice term, too, don't you think) for any reason at all! What if the Animal Control officer turns out to be someone who is opposed to hunting? Or your ex-wife's new boyfriend? Do you think you'd get your "pet seller" permit then?

    Some locales have required that all intact animals be on no more than a four-foot leash whenever they are in public. No voice recall, no flexis, no six foot leather leash. We had a puppy buyer in Indiana who was working her dog on obedience drills (off-lead) in a quiet area of a public park in Bloomington,IN. She was cited. If they are cited again, they will HAVE to have this dog neutered.

    The AKC is very much against these kinds of bills, as they mostly serve to punish responsible dog owners, and the problem dogs (that Chow mix running loose etc.) will go on being problem dogs.

    There are better answers to puppy mills, first and foremost being legislation on a state or municipal level that prohibits the sale of live dogs and cats in a retail situation. If there's no place to sell them, there's no reason to produce them.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Kevin Eskam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pierce, Colorado
    Posts
    964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TroyFeeken View Post
    Obviously there must be more to this than what's posted... If I lived in Michigan I don't think I'd be overly against this bill. A fee to become licensed in the state and a background check and regulations about housing these animals.

    Yes the fee is $200, but don't you think that would allow them to shut down mills better and much more legally? Keep the people that have 2 dogs from breeding them thinking they're going to make some money if they are required to be licensed.
    If they really wanted to shut down puppy mills, Dont you think they would have done that already? This is just another way for government to steal what is yours! YOUR MONEY..

  10. #10
    Senior Member Kevin Eskam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pierce, Colorado
    Posts
    964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larkin View Post
    It amazes me that some dog-savvy folks have such a poor understanding of these kinds of bills. Please see the post from this morning about the situation in Houston. Why should responsible breeders suffer because of puppy mills, and who is the government to "educate" the market? These campaigns are all the work of PeTA and HSUS.

    The Michigan bill not only requires fingerprinting, background check, an extra $200 fee or $500 fee (in some states they've suggested that PER INTACT ANIMAL) -- which can be raised as the governing body sees fit. Also in Michigan you can be turned down for a "pet seller" license (nice term, too, don't you think) for any reason at all! What if the Animal Control officer turns out to be someone who is opposed to hunting? Or your ex-wife's new boyfriend? Do you think you'd get your "pet seller" permit then?

    Some locales have required that all intact animals be on no more than a four-foot leash whenever they are in public. No voice recall, no flexis, no six foot leather leash. We had a puppy buyer in Indiana who was working her dog on obedience drills (off-lead) in a quiet area of a public park in Bloomington,IN. She was cited. If they are cited again, they will HAVE to have this dog neutered.

    The AKC is very much against these kinds of bills, as they mostly serve to punish responsible dog owners, and the problem dogs (that Chow mix running loose etc.) will go on being problem dogs.

    There are better answers to puppy mills, first and foremost being legislation on a state or municipal level that prohibits the sale of live dogs and cats in a retail situation. If there's no place to sell them, there's no reason to produce them.

    Well said! They may be dog savvy but they dont really know how the Government works.

    Most States have a budget lets say 50,000,000, If they do NOT spend that money in a fiscal year they will recieve less the next year. So what do they do? They spend it all and then some!! Now what happens the next year? There budget goes up, but where do they get the money? They start increasing fees, taxes, OH and here is a bunch of business that dont pay a license fee to us, so lets make them pay, NOW WE HAVE MET OUR BUDGET FOR THIS YEAR!! and puppy mills will still thrive!

Similar Threads

  1. WI Breeder Bill
    By Rainmaker in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-23-2009, 12:08 PM
  2. OK Breeder Bill Dies in Committee
    By soda in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-21-2009, 05:32 AM
  3. From AKC: Urgent Call to Action - Oppose NY State Docking Bill
    By WaterDogRem in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-07-2009, 01:03 PM
  4. Oklahoma breeder bill second verse same as first!
    By soda in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-18-2009, 07:08 PM
  5. NJ bill A 2649 is still ALIVE! Please Oppose it!
    By Gina in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-12-2007, 12:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •