RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

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

2K views 18 replies 12 participants last post by  torrey 
#1 ·
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.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
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.
 
#6 ·
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
 
#5 ·
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?
 
This post has been deleted
#7 ·
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 ·
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.
 
#10 ·
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!
 
#13 ·
Quite poorly to boot.
USDA rules are often followed to the letter in puppy mills, it doesn't make the cramped living conditions any better, the food any more palatable, the air any cleaner, or the quality of life more fulfilling for these dogs. Just look at the name of the entity watching over those dogs- United States Department of Agriculture--- meaning that these dogs are held in no higher regard than chickens, cattle, swine, or sheep. They have one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to produce puppies for pet stores in mass quantities. As long as there are pet shops, there will be poorly bred/socialized dogs filling their cages.
 
#17 ·
Question is however...
I have a question for you. Define a puppy mill. I happen to feel it is anyone who breeds Black labs (good lord there are more than enough of those to go around).

After we get rid of the Black lab breeders, we'll move on to the Goldens.

The number of dogs euthanized nationally is about 5 million per year. That is down from more than 25 million less than 20 years ago. The 5 million may nearly be a baseline in that it includes the injured or aggressive dogs that are not suitable for adoption.

The change in the numbers is due to public education. Time and again we have seen proof that "mandatory" restrictions on breeding don't do any good. King County WA tried and failed almost 20 years ago. Los Angeles is trying now and already it isn't working. Every place it has been tried, it has failed!

Peninsula Humane Society in San Mateo tried it. It didn't work there. Right nearby was San Francisco during the same time became the first "no-kill" shelter. Their attitude is that there aren't too many dogs but there are too few good owners. A city the size of SF and there were days when they had no dogs in the shelter except those that were there by law (rabies, dog bites etc).

Eric
 
#18 ·
House bill 6395 withdrawn!! Thank you everyone who wrote letters/emails to stop this!!


CFA Legislative Update
September 8, 2008
Forwarding is OK

Fanciers;

I'm pleased to report the author of Michigan HB 6395, Representative
Bill Caul, has announced that the bill will be withdrawn. Staff members
said they were surprised with the negative reaction to the proposal......

This bill was introduced on September 3, 2008. This proposal would
require anyone who sells or OFFERS to sell more than two cats/dogs OR more
than ONE litter within any 12 month period to obtain a Pet Seller License from
County Animal Control and comply with facility standards.

Thank you to all those who made their views known quickly and
effectively!!

Joan Miller
CFA Legislative Coordinator
 
#19 ·
Glad to see this was withdrawn.

Does anyone know about states that have laws against "puppy mills" and if so, how are those laws written, worded, etc? I think we all know that a true puppy mill is one which has terrible conditions, small cages where the animals are continually confined, etc. But how do they determine what is and is not a puppy mill according to these laws?
 
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