New state legislation being opposed by AKC

[Leslie and Halas]

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I've kept it as short as I can.

The AKC sent a letter to our kennel club asking people to oppose new proposed legislation in Illinois. I'm sure they'll oppose similar legislation in other states. The first law involves tougher standards for breeders. The second one involves ear cropping and tail docking.

Here's the text of the letter...

"Dear Illinois AKC Delegates, Club Officers, Judges and Breeders,

We are writing you today to update you about two pieces of legislation that are being proposed in the Illinois Legislature. Although we are currently waiting on amendments for both bills, the draft amendments that we have seen do not adequately address our concerns, protect responsible breeders or preserve the rights of owners and veterinarians to make decisions regarding an animal’s health care.

House Bill 198 and Senate Bill 53
These bills are supposedly an attempt to address "puppy mils" and irresponsible dog breeders in Illinois. However, these bills affect many small-scale hobby breeders and create unreasonable standards for commercial breeders who are in compliance with current state and federal laws. Their passage will not improve enforcement or the lives of animals in Illinois

The Illinois Department of Agriculture already has a licensing program in place which requires breeders with more than 5 intact females to be licensed. The ;puppy mills; that sparked the introduction of this bill was not licensed as current law required and it was being investigated by the Department of Agriculture.

Although draft amendments that have been circulating would allow the Department of Agriculture to administer the bill (current bill language establishes a new program in the Department of Financial and Professional Regulations), the provisions continue to be burdensome and will not improve animal welfare.

Enforcement of current laws is the most effective way to address animal care issues in Illinois.

Senate Bill 139
SB 139 seeks to severely limit the practices of tail docking and ear cropping in the state. Current Illinois statute allows ear cropping and tail docking done for any legitimate purpose. If SB 139 becomes law, ear cropping and tail docking would be considered "animal torture" under Illinois criminal law and would be allowed only for medical purposes. In effect, SB 139 seeks to fundamentally change many breeds
characteristics by severely limiting the valid practices of cropping and docking.

The American Kennel Club recognizes that ear cropping, tail docking, and dewclaw removal, as described in certain breed standards, are acceptable practices integral to defining and preserving breed character and/or enhancing good health. Appropriate veterinary care should be provided. "

Here's a little bit of House Bill 198

Creates the Dog Breeder License Act. Provides for the licensure of dog breeders with the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation beginning 6 months after the effective date of the Act. Sets forth powers and duties of the Department, licensure requirements, grounds for discipline, civil and criminal penalties for violation of the Act, and administrative procedure. Includes provisions concerning exemption from the Act. Provides that the Act does not limit the power of a unit of local government from regulating or licensing the practice of dog breeding in a stricter manner. Amends the Animal Welfare Act. Provides that pet shop operators must publicly disclose certain information regarding dogs for sale. Amends the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act to provide that a licensee who intentionally makes false or misleading statements in connection with the disclosures required by the Dog Breeder License Act and the Animal Welfare Act are violations of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Amends the Regulatory Sunset Act to set a repeal date of January 1, 2020 for the new Act. Effective immediately.

Here's a little bit of Senate Bill 139

Amends the Humane Care for Animals Act. Limits the situations when a person could dock an animal's tail or crop its ears without violating the Act's prohibition against "animal torture". Establishes that the following is not "animal torture": (i) tail docking performed by an Illinois licensed veterinarian for a medical reason (now, just "tail docking") or (ii) ear cropping performed by an Illinois licensed veterinarian for a medical reason (now, just "ear cropping"). Effective immediately.


Here are links to the full text of the legislation if you're interested in reading it. HB198 is too long to try to summarize:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId...
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId...

I'm curious to hear people's thoughts on this, especially breeders' thoughts. We talked about it a little bit in another discussion. I don't know a lot about the current laws, so I don't know how much of a hardship the new breeder standards would be. I would think that a lot of reputable breeders are living up to these standards already. There may be a lot more documentation with the new standards, but I'm wondering if that's more of an inconvenience than a hardship. The idea with the new legislation would be to try to stop puppy mills, etc., but the AKC sounds like they're suggesting a lot of reputable breeders couldn't live up to these standards. I guess I'm wondering if that's true. Does anyone think that a reputable breeder that cares about their breed would stop breeding just because the standards became higher?

I know that enforcement is also a big part of the issue. I don't know how well the current laws are enforced, so I don't know how much good new laws will do.

Anyway, I just want to hear from others. I was a little surprised at first that the AKC would oppose these laws.

[Mommy2Max]

I got my doodle @ 7 1/2 weeks old and he had a docked tail. I couldn't figure out why when, I thought, that neither labs nor poodles had their tails docked but, I guess poodles do (for cosmetic reasons.)

[Adina P]

doodles are not supposed to have their tails docked. I think the reason for poodles had to do with their original jobs as hunting dogs ... less common for them to have those jobs nowadays. But many still do.

[Mommy2Max]

I got my doodle from a woman who had a lab and a miniature poodle. She didn't know they mated and never knew her poodle was pregnant until she began giving birth. She rushed her poodle to the vet - where she found out that mom was having two pups. The vet docked his tail because they were poodles and not labs (yes that is the story I was told LOL). As much as I love his little "tail", I wouldn't have chose that. The owner of the dogs was moving back to Hawaii so, if I didn't take him, he would hve been a shelter dog :(

That is how I got my doodle and I love him to pieces!

If I'm honest, the story I was given seems a bit off but, that is another story in and of itself.

Thanks for the information on why poodles traditionaly had their tails docked.

~Danielle

[Adina P]

I have to say that I am still most interested in the manner in which the current laws are being enforced. Are current breeders in the state of Illinois slipping through the cracks frequently? can the money be better invested in better enforcement of current laws? I'm not a big fan of extra laws... especially if the current ones are not well enforced. I fear that it would spread the current law enforcement too thin.

[Leslie and Halas]

I don't know how well they enforce them now. Maybe some Illinois breeders have some insight and will post something here.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

The laws are poorly enforced everywhere; not enough staff to conduct inspections, not enough time for them to do so, bureaucratic log-jams, pet industry lobbyists putting the pressure on to look the other way. But even if they were being enforced, as they now stand, they are way too lax regarding the conditions under which the dogs are to be kept. PIJAC has managed to prevent laws being passed that would mandate 20 minutes per day out of the cage, for example. So the current laws do need better enforcement, but also, the laws need to be changed to reflect the average citizen's belief that breeding facilities for companion animals should have different standards than those for livestock.

[Adina P]

good points!

[April Cliber]

20 minutes a day?!! And they didn't want it passed? That's horrible!

I completely agree with everything Ann said. (above)

I think some new laws are needed in certain states. However, I think the laws that PETA has backed are extreme and concern breeders, even good ones. Laws like the above aren't a concern for many breeders because it wouldn't affect us. It's kind of like passing a law that says you can't drive faster than 100 MPH. Wouldn't think of trying that anyway. Cropping and docking is barbaric IMO, so passing those laws are fine with me.

I do think something needs to be done. It just sickens me every time I see pictures from mills. Did you know (I'm guessing you do) this is all public information? How disgusting that they they keep going back and nothing has changed! http://www.petshoppuppies.com/report.asp?ID=43B0435

[Tante & Jordan & now Annie!]

I to agree changes need to be made, Docking and Cropping are barbaric. I would like to a federal law in regards to Companion animals. I feel all breeders should have to early spay and neuter puppies/kittens before they leave to new homes.Unless they are being sold for breeding purposes. I know it brings up the point you do not know if the animal is breeding quality until they are almost 2. I am not sure how to come up with a solution for that.I know there could be one. Just think how that alone would cut down over population. I feel the general public needs to change perceptions on BYB.
BYB's are just as bad Puppy Mills.By my house right now there are 2 BYB's selling AKC labs for $400-450, and Pit Bull puppies for $600. You cant tell me these "breeders" are breeding for the betterment of the breed.No, they are breeding for the $$$. As for Peta, they have valid points but also exstream solutions. I can go on about this topic,but I tired and so I am going to bed.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

PETA is so outside the mainstream as to not even be on the same planet as this discussion. In fact, PETA is very upset with all of us for caring more about dogs than we do for, say, rats or squirrels. PETA has staged public euthanizations of dogs which they took from pounds under the pretext of rescuing them...killing them was PETA's idea of rescue. All of this is documented. Their catch phrase is "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." I don't think we need to discuss PETA here...that is not what this legislation is about.

[April Cliber]

Wow, enlightening.... Didn't know all that. Sorry to bring it up. I guess my point was, I think we do need some laws but need to be careful. Most everyone thinks stopping puppy mills is a good thing, but just because it's labeled as a "stop puppy mills" bill, doesn't mean it is going to help, and in some cases their radical bills.

On the flip side, AKC is mainly concerned about money, so just because they oppose a bill doesn't make it a bad bill.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I agree one hundred percent; my eyes have really been opened to some of the things the AKC supports just to make a buck.