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]

Here is an exerpt where they tell us how terribly unfair and restrictive this bill would be for breeders:

"The Impact.
These bills call for all dog breeders in the state to obtain licensing through the Illinois Department of
Financial and Professional Regulation Division of Professional Regulation (Division). Under SB 53, a
dog breeder is defined as anybody with possession of 6 or more female dogs capable of reproduction, who
has the animals for the purpose of selling their offspring.
A person is ineligible for licensure if he or she has been convicted of any of the following:
• A felony under any Section of the Humane Care for Animals Act;
• Dog fighting;
• Sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal; or
• A criminal offense in another jurisdiction of the United States that is substantially similar to any of
the offenses listed here."

OMG! PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF HAVING SEXUAL CONTACT WITH AN ANIMAL WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO GET A LICENSE TO BREED DOGS!!!! TALK ABOUT TAKING AWAY YOUR FREEDOM!!!

[Leslie and Halas]

Hey, my CPA license comes from the same department. Glad we don't have those same restrictions. LOL!

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

However, I have heard they are introducing a bill to refuse you a CPA license if you have sexual contact with your dog's money.....

[Leslie and Halas]

Also gross. Who knows where that money's been?! And Halas hasn't made a penny yet this year. He'd better get moving and win some cuteness contests.

[Pamela-Pambriella Goldendoodles]

I did NOT mean to imply that there isn't animal cruelty. Please don't put words in my moulth that I didn't say. I quote "BUT OF COURSE THERE HAS TO BE CONSEQUENSCES FOR CERTAIN ACTIONS/ANIMAL CRUELTY." I believe this does include things like sex with animals and dog fights ect....... These things are very obviously cruel. Doesn't the law already include these things? Making more laws doesn't always solve the problems. In fact many times makes things only hard for those of us who are loving, kind, law abiding citizens. This was my main point. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

Pamela, I am very sorry that you feel I "put words in" your mouth. I quoted directly from your post. Perhaps if you would explain specifically how you feel that laws hurt law abiding citizens, or specifically how you think these laws would hurt yourself or other breeders, we could clear up the "misunderstanding." The other breeders who have responded do not seem to think it would be a problem, so I am wondering exactly what you see as one in this particular legislation.
Illinois does not have the laws mentioned...that's why we're trying to pass them.
Sorry if you felt offended by my posts...this is a very important issue to me, and I take a very hard stand on it. My comments were meant to express my own viewpoint, and not to offend anyone. I think good honest debate is healthy, I hope you agree.

[Pamela-Pambriella Goldendoodles]

I do think good honest debate is healthy. This is my whole point. I only wanted to point out that sometimes laws don't solve problems. They make problems because many times they don't do the job they are intended to do. I'm glad you have strong values on how to treat your pets. So do I, and I believe we may have many of the same values. Please realize others may not share all of your views on that particular subject. Maybe you don't think this law goes to far, but others do. Many people don't view docking tails and cropping ears as animal cruelty..........NOT SAYING I AM AMONG THEM, I just see their point of view and would prefer to debate and win them over to my side than force them. I would just rather teach people to govern themselves than rely on force through the government. I think it makes them better citizens if they can learn this. Of course there are those that are crazy and obviously cruel, and they need to pay the consequences. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any laws, just limited laws. Example........I know many people leave food down all day for their dog or they constantly feed table scraps to them and their dog becomes fatter and fatter until it is a health risk for them and sometimes they die from this. Is this animal torture and should there be a law against it? Maybe we shouldn't allow these people to have pets? How far should laws go? Certainly I can see that if there is NO law in your state against animal cruelty that they should have some laws against it. Thank you for your apology, but I wasn't offended, I just felt you misunderstood my comment, and thus misquoted me by taking what I said out of context and applying it to an extreme (sex with animals). Thank you for replying

[Adina P]

I think I see what Pamela is trying to get at. We all love freedom and due to varying political philosophies (on the grand scale not just about THIS specific animal issue) some people want FAR LESS government interference and others don't mind a little more if it means laws that they believe will be helpful. There is a LOT of political philosophy underlying decisions such as these and feelings about those ideas run really deep. I don't want to get into a political debate, though.

Out of curiosity I'm gonna check with some of the Libertarian dog-lovers I know and see what their thoughts are on this... because they tend to be against added laws, YET they love dogs and so perhaps they have an interesting perspective or interesting solution.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I know that people have different political views regarding government interference. I also would not want anyone passing arbitrary laws regarding how I should feed or care for my own pets. However, this discussion, and my own comments on these bills apply to PROFESSIONAL LICENSING...not personal values, political beliefs, or individual liberties regarding our own family members, both 2 and 4 footed. If a person voluntarily goes into a particular profession, whether it be a doctor, a CPA, an exercise instructor, or a dog breeder, there have to be laws regarding professional standards and conduct. For example: when I was a certified personal trainer, I was not permitted to give nutritional supplements to my paying clients. However, I took them myself, and often recommended them to my friends. That's the difference. I cannot understand why laws that regulate professional licensing are being confused with personal liberties.

[Adina P]

Perhaps it is a fear of the slippery slope? I don't know. My thoughts above were an attempt to clarify and understand... perhaps the concern is just a 'what if' we start here and then little by little our personal liberties and pet ownership rights are eroded?

I still don't personally see a problem with limiting breeders on some things.

I have a question thought...why do bills like this have to lump so many items together? Wouldn't it be easier (maybe not?) to just limit # of dogs for now. And later add in another measure once they've had success enforcing ONE thing?

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I definitely agree with there being too many issues lumped together here. And I think the Dog Breeder License Act is of far greater importance than the one about cropping ears, etc. Whether you believe in cropping or not, it is nowhere as horrific as what is going on in the mills. The aim, IMO, should be to end the puppy mills, period.

[Pamela-Pambriella Goldendoodles]

THANK YOU TO BOTH OF YOU! IN THIS I AM IN TOTAL AGREEMENT!! Thank you too, for explaining it far better than I did!