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.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I would hope that Bill 198 is the first step toward outlawing dogs being sold in pet stores. That would eliminate the mills, and at the same time, would not affect legitimate breeders. Plain and simple, if you want a dog, you would have two choices: adopt from a shelter/rescue, or buy a puppy directly from the breeder. There is no business there for the mills. I know you would still have the internet-puppy mill sales, but you'd eliminate 90% of the big commercial breeders. Seems so simple to me, but I know there is a huge lobbying group who is terrified of this very thing, and is fighting tooth and nail to prevent it from happening. And I guess it's kind of hard to walk into the local Pete's Petland and tell the owner, "we're shutting you down." So my hope is that legislation such as Bill 198 is the first step toward a gradual phasing out.

[Pamela-Pambriella Goldendoodles]

I just wish that everyone would stop buying from puppy mills and I think that would solve a lot of problems without more goverment interference! I guess this seems impossible, because people make poor choices at times. But then, isn't the goverment run by people that make poor choices at times? It seems as if more laws, just hurt more animals and people.........hmmmm, is force always the answer? I think educating people is better and more affective. But then how do we educate without destroying freedom?? I believe true education gives freedom........it's a tough situation. But of course there has to be consequences for certain actions/animal cruelty. I think the definition of animal cruelty is what is in discussion here and everyone may have a different opinion about that.......So then what?

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

"I think the definition of animal cruelty is what is in discussion here and everyone may have a different opinion about that......"
I don't think there is one person here whose definition of animal cruelty doesn't include puppy mills.
As far as education goes, if Oprah Winfrey can't reach people, how would you propose to do it? Even after her shows about the horrendous conditions in puppy mills, and the dogs in pet stores coming from puppy mills, an astounding number of people still haven't heard of puppy mills and believe that the dogs in pet stores come from legitimate, lovely breeders. Close the pet stores, close the puppy mills' marketplace...it's that simple. Who is hurt by this?

[Adina P]

What are the lobbying groups afraid of ... what is their radical position exactly?

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

Anything that costs them $$$ or interferes with their "freedom", I guess. For example, the 20 minutes a day outside of the cage...that would require an employee to take the dog out of the cage and put it back in the cage. They might have to hire someone to help out. Plus, some supervision and/or an enclosure, those things cost money. There might be all kinds of expensive requirements...having a solid surface underfoot in the cages, for example, instead of wire mesh. Maybe a requirement that the excrement in the cage not exceed a depth of 1"...you know, those kinds of radical, expensive, restrictive laws.

[Adina P]

WHO are the lobbying groups...what individuals make up such groups who fight for this?

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

http://www.pijac.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1

I'm sure there are others, but these are the big guns- PIJAC; Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council. Take a look at their Board of Directors, for starter..
You can also read about every bit of proposed legislation they are concerned about, and why they are concerned. Very informative.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

Here's the link to the board of directors.

http://www.pijac.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=82

[Adina P]

that was all very interesting. i want so bad for them to LIST these so called responsible commercial breeders for all to see. Sounds like they SAY they believe in promoting good animal care...but realistically they promote technical care...lighting, air conditioning, basic vetting, lack of gross neglect...but the stuff one would expect from a reputable breeder (individual attention, choosing right pup from family, preventing impulse buys, health tested parents, health guarantee, education about breed, early socialization and mental stimulation, etc...is not really viewed as necessary).

[Pamela-Pambriella Goldendoodles]

Sorry, my comment wasn't in reply to your above comment. I was only adding to the original discussion. Yes, educating people is more time consuming and you have to be persistant and not give up. But I believe it ultimately works better. Have you ever heard the old saying........"A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still"? You're right it is harder to win someone over to your point of view. But wouldn't you agree that it has much greater rewards? I do agree puppy mills should be shut down, but how to do it without hurting good breeders is the question for me. I'm not convinced that keeping pet stores from selling puppies is the answer, but maybe. Also, I wonder if the puppy mill business would just find a way to get around the laws. You see, dishonest people just find ways to be dishonest and more laws usually hurt the honest people the most. Your state may need some more laws, just wondering if the laws they end up passing will hurt more than help. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

Pamela, no need for an apology. We just see things differently on this issue. I cannot see how passing these laws will hurt good breeders, and I strongly disagree that "more laws usually hurt the honest people the most." I wish you would explain to us how "good breeders" would be hurt if these laws were passed. I would also add that, as you stated above, everyone's definition of something is different, and that would include their definitions of "good" breeders. To me, that's why the laws are necessary. There are an awful lot of inexperienced people who are breeding unhealthy dogs for the sole purpose of making money...maybe it ought to be a little tougher to do that. Every other profession has licensing requirements of some kind, why should this be an exception?
As for convincing people against their will, I'm not interested in convincing anyone of anything. There are many localities throughout the United States where pet stores selling puppies are not allowed. I would like Illinois to be one of them.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

Here is PIJAC's Call to Action regarding the very same Illinois Bill 198 that Leslie is discussing here. You will now see exactly what their objections are:

http://www.pijac.org/files/public/IL_HB_198.pdf