A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Discuss Breed Specific Legislation and local county laws on pit bull ownership.
User avatar
snikles
Adolescent Bully
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:51 am
Location: Annapolis, MD

Re: A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Postby snikles » Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:11 am

MetaMuffin wrote:lol, slippery slope argument.


It is not a slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument would be if I said that not allowing laws restricting breeding would lead to not allowing laws restricting other things. I basically pointed out that the reasoning behind your argument is flawed, because applying that same reasoning to all laws would end up with us not having any laws. I was not arguing that we were going to end up living in anarchy if we disallowed breeding laws.

What kinds of "laws and restrictions" do you mean, and in which "civilized areas?"


I am sure they vary from state to state and probably even among local governments, but I would think that limits on the number of breeding stock, requirements for enclosures and the well being of the stock, licensing, requiring the pups not be separated from their mother too early etc. all seem like reasonable restrictions that a civilized society would have.

User avatar
Brianna&Bubba.
2 Legit 2 Quit Bully
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:08 pm
Location: Visalia, California

Re: A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Postby Brianna&Bubba. » Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:48 am

randomroads wrote:
ProudMommy77 wrote:I believe there are some mandatory spay and neuter laws in effect in a few places, and they are taking measures shut down puppy mills. And restrict the sale of dogs in pet stores. I would personally like to see more low cost spay and neuter clinics available to people, or even a sliding scale fee. Harrisburg did at one point have a free spay and neuter clinic for Pit Bulls. But, as far as I know that has since run out of money. The county I live in, has NO low cost spay and neuter available. Just my thoughts.


This.

I'm also very uncomfortable with the idea of putting real restrictions on who gets to breed dogs based on pedigree and titles. There are people out there who use their dogs for hunting that have no titles and don't care about pedigrees as long as the dogs do the job right the first time. These people aren't breeding willy nilly, they put some thought into it to produce even better dogs. I suppose if push came to shove, if your idea of a breeding law forced these people to make a choice between feeding their family or going on welfare, they could turn to disreputable registries like the Continental Kennel Club.

Granted there aren't millions of people using dogs for a living like there are people on welfare, but there are enough people who do use them to put food on the table instead of sucking the teet of Uncle Sam for me to give pause to your idea.

There's also the pig problem. Many of the hog dogs that work in Florida and the southern hog region aren't titled, papered, or anything special at all except that they're damn good at catching pigs and keeping handlers safe. Many reputable breeders aren't going to be interested in selling their pups to hog hunters, since many of those dogs live short lives even with body armor.


I was just about to say something about this, and you gave a great example. I dont think that your should HAVE to have pedigrees to breed. I feel like that is unnecessary because that can be a real mess, much better breeding, but can be pretty complicated if im right.

User avatar
Brianna&Bubba.
2 Legit 2 Quit Bully
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:08 pm
Location: Visalia, California

Re: A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Postby Brianna&Bubba. » Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:57 am

FransterDoo wrote:There are just too many variable rrgarding what is considered good husbandry. Vaccinations, feeding and housing all vary. Some of the best breeders for dogs in law enforcement run a purely kennel-based operation.

I personally, do not vaccinate beyond 1 yrs. old except rabies. What if new legislation requires me to do something that I believe is actually harmful for my dogs?

Are we also going to have a public officer determine that my raw feeding protocols are sufficient?

What title is sufficient? It is a CH from the Continental Kennel Club and a Rally Novice title? It is dedication to only 1 sport or beginning titles in a variety of sports? Should a dog have to have a conformation title?


I see your point, but I would guess that it would not go to such an extent, i wouldnt think they would have you revaccinate/put more drugs into your dogs, as long as they were once vaccinated, and the yearly rabies.

i wouldnt imagine police enforcement ever trign to say the way you feed your dog is wrong, are you saying "protocols" as in they would have a protocal with raw feeding? I think they would only care about whether your dog eats or not.

I dont think any dog should have a title/papers or anything to be able to breed.

User avatar
snikles
Adolescent Bully
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:51 am
Location: Annapolis, MD

Re: A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Postby snikles » Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:25 pm

Brianna&Bubba. wrote:
FransterDoo wrote:There are just too many variable rrgarding what is considered good husbandry. Vaccinations, feeding and housing all vary. Some of the best breeders for dogs in law enforcement run a purely kennel-based operation.

I personally, do not vaccinate beyond 1 yrs. old except rabies. What if new legislation requires me to do something that I believe is actually harmful for my dogs?

Are we also going to have a public officer determine that my raw feeding protocols are sufficient?

What title is sufficient? It is a CH from the Continental Kennel Club and a Rally Novice title? It is dedication to only 1 sport or beginning titles in a variety of sports? Should a dog have to have a conformation title?


I see your point, but I would guess that it would not go to such an extent, i wouldnt think they would have you revaccinate/put more drugs into your dogs, as long as they were once vaccinated, and the yearly rabies.

i wouldnt imagine police enforcement ever trign to say the way you feed your dog is wrong, are you saying "protocols" as in they would have a protocal with raw feeding? I think they would only care about whether your dog eats or not.

I dont think any dog should have a title/papers or anything to be able to breed.


Exactly. They would not need any new laws about feeding or vaccination. In most states (if not every state) there are already laws about that.

User avatar
Brianna&Bubba.
2 Legit 2 Quit Bully
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:08 pm
Location: Visalia, California

Re: A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Postby Brianna&Bubba. » Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:41 pm

snikles wrote:
Brianna&Bubba. wrote:
FransterDoo wrote:There are just too many variable rrgarding what is considered good husbandry. Vaccinations, feeding and housing all vary. Some of the best breeders for dogs in law enforcement run a purely kennel-based operation.

I personally, do not vaccinate beyond 1 yrs. old except rabies. What if new legislation requires me to do something that I believe is actually harmful for my dogs?

Are we also going to have a public officer determine that my raw feeding protocols are sufficient?

What title is sufficient? It is a CH from the Continental Kennel Club and a Rally Novice title? It is dedication to only 1 sport or beginning titles in a variety of sports? Should a dog have to have a conformation title?


I see your point, but I would guess that it would not go to such an extent, i wouldnt think they would have you revaccinate/put more drugs into your dogs, as long as they were once vaccinated, and the yearly rabies.

i wouldnt imagine police enforcement ever trign to say the way you feed your dog is wrong, are you saying "protocols" as in they would have a protocal with raw feeding? I think they would only care about whether your dog eats or not.

I dont think any dog should have a title/papers or anything to be able to breed.


Exactly. They would not need any new laws about feeding or vaccination. In most states (if not every state) there are already laws about that.


Yeah exactly. You know this doesnt need to be strictly monitored, just a step in a more healthy way of breeding. Because its a law doesnt mean it will turn into some crazed and strict law were you have no control of how you reaise your dogs. It should go off common sense like most animal welfare laws. There isnt a STRICT protocol. All I want from this is that I know healthy vaccinated dogs are breeding. The dogs/arrivin pups, themselves are in a safe environment. The owners are knowledgable about breeding. & That the pups go to good homes.

User avatar
snikles
Adolescent Bully
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:51 am
Location: Annapolis, MD

Re: A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Postby snikles » Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:04 pm

Exactly. You wouldn't need to kick down breeders doors demanding their papers, but if there is a breeder that becomes a problem, then it would be nice to know that the force of law can deal with that particular operation. Otherwise a breeder could just be openly irresponsible knowing there is no legal recourse.

User avatar
FransterDoo
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 4443
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:54 pm
Location: smurf landia

Re: A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Postby FransterDoo » Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:58 pm

Brianna&Bubba. wrote:
FransterDoo wrote:There are just too many variable rrgarding what is considered good husbandry. Vaccinations, feeding and housing all vary. Some of the best breeders for dogs in law enforcement run a purely kennel-based operation.

I personally, do not vaccinate beyond 1 yrs. old except rabies. What if new legislation requires me to do something that I believe is actually harmful for my dogs?

Are we also going to have a public officer determine that my raw feeding protocols are sufficient?

What title is sufficient? It is a CH from the Continental Kennel Club and a Rally Novice title? It is dedication to only 1 sport or beginning titles in a variety of sports? Should a dog have to have a conformation title?


I see your point, but I would guess that it would not go to such an extent, i wouldnt think they would have you revaccinate/put more drugs into your dogs, as long as they were once vaccinated, and the yearly rabies.

i wouldnt imagine police enforcement ever trign to say the way you feed your dog is wrong, are you saying "protocols" as in they would have a protocal with raw feeding? I think they would only care about whether your dog eats or not.

I dont think any dog should have a title/papers or anything to be able to breed.


Really? You don't think? Have you even studied legislation or policy?

If the law states "only healthy, vaccinated dogs should be bred". Then we need to define those terms.

In the federal government and in California, the legislative branch writes the laws. So you are right in that the law could be written as above. What we all need to think about is how the law is read and interpreted but the group charged with enforcement. They are the people who define the terms and they are the people who enforce those definitions.

So next, let's define "Healthy". What does that, with regard to breeding dogs mean to you?

and after that "vaccinated". Does that mean yearly DHLPP and Rabies? What about the Dodds protocols? What about breeders with minimal vaccine protocols?

Could you be, either by over-legislating or by improperly legislation, actually harm the small, hobby breeders who truly care about the breed while actually encouraging the large-scale breeders that folks call puppy mills?

It sound like both of you have a lot of heart in this! But before we all start waving sign about legislating breeders - you need to think about the entire legislative and policy implementation process. What I see is a lot of vagueness. Do either of you even known any reputable breeders?

oh and Heck - we have even gotten to enforcement!

(and if anyone is wondering, I have a Masters in Public Policy and have worked as an auditor for government programs at the state and county level)

User avatar
Brianna&Bubba.
2 Legit 2 Quit Bully
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:08 pm
Location: Visalia, California

Re: A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Postby Brianna&Bubba. » Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:31 am

Really? You don't think? Have you even studied legislation or policy?

If the law states "only healthy, vaccinated dogs should be bred". Then we need to define those terms.

In the federal government and in California, the legislative branch writes the laws. So you are right in that the law could be written as above. What we all need to think about is how the law is read and interpreted but the group charged with enforcement. They are the people who define the terms and they are the people who enforce those definitions.

So next, let's define "Healthy". What does that, with regard to breeding dogs mean to you?

and after that "vaccinated". Does that mean yearly DHLPP and Rabies? What about the Dodds protocols? What about breeders with minimal vaccine protocols?

Could you be, either by over-legislating or by improperly legislation, actually harm the small, hobby breeders who truly care about the breed while actually encouraging the large-scale breeders that folks call puppy mills?

It sound like both of you have a lot of heart in this! But before we all start waving sign about legislating breeders - you need to think about the entire legislative and policy implementation process. What I see is a lot of vagueness. Do either of you even known any reputable breeders?

oh and Heck - we have even gotten to enforcement!

(and if anyone is wondering, I have a Masters in Public Policy and have worked as an auditor for government programs at the state and county level)


Well yeah, you have a masters in Piblic Policy and we (well me) really knows nothing or the complexity of politics/government, so cut me some slack. lol But I see what exactly your saying. & I really dont have anything in response because your right, things will either turn into over-legislation or improper legislation. :/

User avatar
LVUFreddie
Newborn Bully
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:29 am
Location: Kansas

Re: A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Postby LVUFreddie » Fri Apr 15, 2011 2:20 am

FBODGRL wrote:
LVUFreddie wrote:
FBODGRL wrote:I think before anyone could think about raining in the BYB's the puppy mill problem would need to handled first.


LVUFreddie wrote:*sigh* Has the though ever occurred to any of you that the average person just doesn't really care that much about the plight of animals? I'm not saying that they condone abuse or neglect of them,just that there are more important things in this world.If I could save one person from a life of misery or save 10,000 animals from being PTS,I would choose the person every time.Instead of using money to regulate animal breeding/ownership why not take that money and help some kid who wants to make something of themselves but can't because they don't have the money to go to school?
And I'm the one here with the problem,yeah,ok.Go ahead ban me if it will make you all feel better,I have real things to worry about other than what a bunch of AR freaks think about me.



You could always just leave...no one is forcing you to be here.
LVUFreddie wrote:So

LVUFreddie wrote:So who is to define what separates a "good breeder" from a "bad breeder"?


Try reading the thread about what a reputable breeder is.
so whoever wrote the thread on pit bull forum,on reputable breeders is the nationally recognized authority on the subject?
And why would I just leave? This place is extremely biased and one sided.People need to see different sides to things.You aren't educating anyone by getting rid of other ideas simply because the majority disagrees,that's called propaganda.



You were the one saying you had better things to do. I could really care less what you do.

Actually no that is not just a pit bull forum thing...showing that you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Feel free to do research elsewhere on what an actual reputable breeder is and you will see where the information came from.

A lot of things actually do have a right and a wrong and the majority here usually agree with the right....just because you disagree with the majority doesn't make you right. It is really annoying to hear people talking about things they have no idea about and act as if it is fact and then promote something that is incorrect.

Oh and I don't need to see another angle I deal with enough ignorance in real life.

So because I have a different opinion than you,it's ignorant? What's ignorant is presuming to tell me what I do or don't know about.I'm sure we would agree (for the most part) about what makes a reputable/ethical breeder.The problem,is that most people don't view animals the same way a lot of dog lovers do.To you and I,the decision breed your dog because "She's the best dog ever and she's so pretty,besides all my friends said they would like a pup off her" is completely insane.To the average Joe Public,it makes perfect sense.I've seen people get flamed for feeding their dog anything less than TOTW,most average dog owners would look at you like you were out of your mind if you told them that they should spend 60+ dollars on a bag of dog food,especially when they can just go buy some Alpo for 15.00$. Who gets to decide what is considered good enough? I'm completely against most people breeding their dogs,all my pets are fixed,I've never even come close to having an "oops" litter and I would never the need to be a breeder,pretty responsible huh? well,I also feed my dog Wal Mart food,because he is a dog and my daughter is going to have a new outfit or toy before the dog eats 50$ a bag dog food.

User avatar
snikles
Adolescent Bully
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:51 am
Location: Annapolis, MD

Re: A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Postby snikles » Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:34 am

Brianna&Bubba. wrote:
Really? You don't think? Have you even studied legislation or policy?

If the law states "only healthy, vaccinated dogs should be bred". Then we need to define those terms.

In the federal government and in California, the legislative branch writes the laws. So you are right in that the law could be written as above. What we all need to think about is how the law is read and interpreted but the group charged with enforcement. They are the people who define the terms and they are the people who enforce those definitions.

So next, let's define "Healthy". What does that, with regard to breeding dogs mean to you?

and after that "vaccinated". Does that mean yearly DHLPP and Rabies? What about the Dodds protocols? What about breeders with minimal vaccine protocols?

Could you be, either by over-legislating or by improperly legislation, actually harm the small, hobby breeders who truly care about the breed while actually encouraging the large-scale breeders that folks call puppy mills?

It sound like both of you have a lot of heart in this! But before we all start waving sign about legislating breeders - you need to think about the entire legislative and policy implementation process. What I see is a lot of vagueness. Do either of you even known any reputable breeders?

oh and Heck - we have even gotten to enforcement!

(and if anyone is wondering, I have a Masters in Public Policy and have worked as an auditor for government programs at the state and county level)


Well yeah, you have a masters in Piblic Policy and we (well me) really knows nothing or the complexity of politics/government, so cut me some slack. lol But I see what exactly your saying. & I really dont have anything in response because your right, things will either turn into over-legislation or improper legislation. :/


Don't back down. Her Masters in Public Policy doesn't mean anything. She was just being overly cynical. There will be no perfect law or perfect enforcement, but that does not mean we give up on legislation.

User avatar
FransterDoo
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 4443
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:54 pm
Location: smurf landia

Re: A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Postby FransterDoo » Fri Apr 15, 2011 9:38 am

So stop being vague and answer my questions.

How does one work to ensure, that to the best of their abilities, that the legislation they propose meets the needs of the community. A lot of folks stood behind the SF law in the beginning and we're just now really seeing the long term issues with that piece of legislation. We used to have a number of Ontario residents who could speak about living directly under a breed ban legislation.

Write your proposed law and define your terms.

What is a good enough title? What is healthy? What is your minimum levels of husbandry? How will you enforce it? Who will enforce it?

are there any other cities/counties/states/countries with restrictions on breeding? What works and what doesn't in those areas?

What fine/punishment would those who breed illegally get?

I'm not being cynical. I'm hoping that folks, many of who care a lot about animal welfare, can have a well thought out discussion about legislation and look at what that legislation could actually look like. It's actually a fun exercise that requires you (general you) to expand and define on why one thinks the way one thinks.

User avatar
snikles
Adolescent Bully
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:51 am
Location: Annapolis, MD

Re: A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Postby snikles » Fri Apr 15, 2011 9:50 am

I am not going to write the legislation. If I wanted to do that I would have took the job with Legislative Services after I passed the bar. That being said that does not mean that there cannot be a well written law. There will be no such thing as a perfect law, believe me I can find holes in anything. It is what I do for a living. But we have processes to deal with these things and fine tune them over time. The legal system in the US and the states that compose it has served us pretty well over the last couple of hundred years. I am not going to abandon when it comes to legislating breeding when it is used to control much more significant matters.

User avatar
Brianna&Bubba.
2 Legit 2 Quit Bully
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:08 pm
Location: Visalia, California

Re: A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Postby Brianna&Bubba. » Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:25 pm

FransterDoo wrote:So stop being vague and answer my questions.

How does one work to ensure, that to the best of their abilities, that the legislation they propose meets the needs of the community. A lot of folks stood behind the SF law in the beginning and we're just now really seeing the long term issues with that piece of legislation. We used to have a number of Ontario residents who could speak about living directly under a breed ban legislation.

Write your proposed law and define your terms.

What is a good enough title? What is healthy? What is your minimum levels of husbandry? How will you enforce it? Who will enforce it?

are there any other cities/counties/states/countries with restrictions on breeding? What works and what doesn't in those areas?

What fine/punishment would those who breed illegally get?

I'm not being cynical. I'm hoping that folks, many of who care a lot about animal welfare, can have a well thought out discussion about legislation and look at what that legislation could actually look like. It's actually a fun exercise that requires you (general you) to expand and define on why one thinks the way one thinks.


I feel like ive expressed my own opinion on how I would define the terms of the law. :/

Title? - I believe if titles shouldnt be required to breed, then I believe people will try and breed illegally just as more because getting title and papers can be complicated complicated process.

Health- If they are eating dog food, whether its $15.00 walmart bag of dog food or you choose to feed raw diet, as long as the dog eats and drinks, there should be NO problem. Healthy conditions to ME, means that the mom is safely inside during some hours of the day and that she cant get into anything(food or toxins). Clean environment. I just dont want mom dog to be tied up on some 5 foot chain for her whole pregnancy outside during all hours, which isnt rare..

Husbandry- Minimum levels. ? I dont think that the bitch should be impregnated over and over after every litter and durign every heat. I think we can all agree thats not right.. I think one household can be subjected to 2 litters a year at max. (again I dont know much about the breeding process)

Enforcing- Just like how animal cruelty is enforced today, you rely on the community and the public to adress the situation to animal control to have it handled. I dont see how the enforcing part seems so difficult?

There are other places that enforce and restrict on breeding, just like a person before was saying so in this thread.

I think there should be a hefty fine to anyone who breeds illegally. $300.00 at the least.

User avatar
Brianna&Bubba.
2 Legit 2 Quit Bully
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:08 pm
Location: Visalia, California

Re: A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Postby Brianna&Bubba. » Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:43 pm

THIS VIDEO IS THE REASON SOME KIND OF LAW NEEDS TO HAPPEN!


User avatar
SnowKoi2010
Bully Lover 4 Life
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:16 pm
Location: Oil City, LA
Contact:

Re: A Law or Restriction on breeding?

Postby SnowKoi2010 » Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:36 pm

That video makes me sad. to me it re-enforces not only the fact that there needs to be some law against back yard breeding and and that breeding needs to be left to the ones that know what they are doing; It also says that there should be some sort of law that requires you to have identification to own a pet.

I still stand firm and think that they should have a pet owners licence, and they are required to show that and the papers for their dogs and have photos of their land to prove that they have the room to breed. I don't know, but that did make me very sad.

And I think the fine for illegally breeding should start about 200 per pup that was born and increases each time you are caught breeding.


Return to “Laws”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests