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)