Your thoughts?

Minnesota breeders of hunting and sporting dogs have a bone to pick with state lawmakers.

They’re upset with a bill called the Dog and Cat Breeders Act, which would impose new license, inspection, confinement and other requirements on breeders who sell dogs and possess six or more adult breeding females.

That would include Roger Berg of St. Cloud, president of the Minnesota Federation of Field Trial Clubs. Berg breeds champion red setters, a type of hunting dog. His kennel, Ironfire Setters, is a small operation with 13 dogs, but eight are breeding females and fall under the new regulations.

“Our whole group is up in arms over this,” Berg said. “It really hurts small breeders. All of us want good treatment of animals, but there’s no need for this.”

The 13-page bill is designed to increase regulation of so-called “puppy mills” that have inhumane and overcrowded conditions. The bill creates a sliding license fee for breeders based on number of animals, starting at $75 for fewer than 50 animals. It establishes annual inspections and creates standards for outdoor shelter that include four sides, a roof and a floor raised 2 inches off the ground. It prohibits tethers or leashes as a means of confinement.

The bill comes as animal-welfare groups are pressing Minnesota for stricter statewide oversight of dog breeders. Last year, Morrison County made national headlines after a breeding facility was permitted to have as many as 600 dogs. Some lawmakers and animal-welfare groups say local governments aren’t doing enough to regulate inhumane operations.

While Berg understands those concerns, he said his small breeding operation already is regulated by Benton County, where he lives, and sporting-dog breeders who pay close attention to their dogs’ health and breeding will be driven out of business.

The bill, he said, could impact hundreds of small breeders of sporting and hunting dogs.

The American Kennel Club also opposes the Minnesota bill, calling it “impractical, unenforceable and costly.”

The bill’s chief author, Sen. Don Betzold, DFL-Fridley, said he is willing to make changes in the legislation, though he believes there’s a need for standardized, statewide regulation of breeders.

“I don’t want to put good breeders out of business,” he said. “But we need some standards out there, and there are none. There should be a way of taking care of bad breeders.”

On the Web: To read the bill, go to the Minnesota Legislature at http://www.leg.state.mn.us. The bill is S.F. 121. The House version is H.F. 1046

There’s good reason for this bill. There are some terrible outfits out there. I’ve visited MANY breeding outfits through the years, there’s a pile of them one could call NASTY!! There for, I’m all for the changes. As far as hurting business?? The quality breeders will stand strong as their “product” is in demand. If a breeder runs a clean outfit, they don’t have much to worry about, it’s the outfits that run dirty, unhumane facilities that need to adhere to this bill, if not, they’ll have to pay. One needs to understand the rules/laws for breeding, the way they stand now, are soft.

Those that put out quality “product” under clean, humane conditions will be just fine. This bill will effect them VERY little.

BIRDDOG

There’s good reason for this bill. There are some terrible outfits out there. I’ve visited MANY breeding outfits through the years, there’s a pile of them one could call NASTY!! There for, I’m all for the changes. As far as hurting business?? The quality breeders will stand strong as their “product” is in demand. If a breeder runs a clean outfit, they don’t have much to worry about, it’s the outfits that run dirty, unhumane facilities that need to adhere to this bill, if not, they’ll have to pay. One needs to understand the rules/laws for breeding, the way they stand now, are soft.

Those that put out quality “product” under clean, humane conditions will be just fine. This bill will effect them VERY little.

BIRDDOG

I agree with BIRDDOG. This law is needed for those who do not run a clean operation. In the long run, the guy who operates a good breeding facility will have less competition to deal with.

big g

I agree with BIRDDOG. This law is needed for those who do not run a clean operation. In the long run, the guy who operates a good breeding facility will have less competition to deal with.

big g

I don’t know how a $75 fee would jepordize any breeding facility but it would fund an inspection proccess to keep puppy mills on the up and up. Unless I’m missing something I don’t see a reason not to pass the law.

I don’t know how a $75 fee would jepordize any breeding facility but it would fund an inspection proccess to keep puppy mills on the up and up. Unless I’m missing something I don’t see a reason not to pass the law.

I might be missing something here also, but $75 seems like very little for a breeder. At the same time, I am sure this new agency will depend mostly on taxpayer money. Thats you and me paying for another questionable state program. Don’t get me wrong, there are shady outfits out there. There are local agencies that can check on kennels and their living conditions. At the same time, I as a consumer would not buy a dog before researching the breeder. The kennel I am affiliated with as well as others I have visited are usually pretty open about their operation.

I might be missing something here also, but $75 seems like very little for a breeder. At the same time, I am sure this new agency will depend mostly on taxpayer money. Thats you and me paying for another questionable state program. Don’t get me wrong, there are shady outfits out there. There are local agencies that can check on kennels and their living conditions. At the same time, I as a consumer would not buy a dog before researching the breeder. The kennel I am affiliated with as well as others I have visited are usually pretty open about their operation.

For what it is worth this is a link to another forum that may shed a new light on the situation.
http://www.smallmunsterlander.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=844 Perhaps some issues should not be taken casually.

For what it is worth this is a link to another forum that may shed a new light on the situation.
http://www.smallmunsterlander.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=844 Perhaps some issues should not be taken casually.

Personally I drafted a letter to my representatives telling them I am strongly opposed to this legislation for a number of reasons. Generally speaking, getting government involved in anything makes a greater more expensive mess of a situation.

We all know there are puppy mills out there which do not have the animal’s welfare in mind. My issue is the proposed legislation is nothing more than a feel good bill which will put an extra strain on the wrong group, breeders who are doing a good job.

Because most small breeders don’t cut corners, they love the dogs too much they are not making large profits, and now with the government trying to step in a add additional costs there will be an additional force shoving the small breeder towards throwing in the towel – shifting breeding back towards the group who are the offenders – puppy mills.

I took this off the AKC site, but let’s look at some of the bill language:

Any breeder with six or more intact adult females will be forced to comply with the requirements of HB 1046. An adult dog is defined as one who is over 20 weeks of age. This threshold is both arbitrary and overreaching as it does not focus on the number of litters or puppies produced and sold.

If a veterinarian is part of the inspection team and determines there is a substantial risk to the health and welfare of an animal, including, but not limited to, disease or pain, the veterinarian may immediately euthanize the animal. Let’s face it- if these animals are slated to go to a shelter already – what do you think the shelter is going to be lobbying the vet on site to do with these animals?

It will be almost impossible for smaller breeders and dog owners who maintain their dogs in their own residential premises to comply with the unreasonable building standards required by HB 1046.

Under HB 1046, the amount of space required of each dog is based on the dog’s weight. There is no scientific or accepted husbandry basis for these requirements.

Animals may not be tethered or leashed as a means of confinement. Anyone here use a chain gang or a stake out? Not anymore according to this legislation.

There is a reason the AKC is strongly opposed to this bill – it is horrible legislation. Remember who the AKC is – a club of dog clubs – not some huge corporate entity, they know what they are talking about on this one.

I could go on and on about this one, but they vote today ( 15th ) on this. Here’s hoping the government sticks to what they know – over taxing us, and stays out of the dog breeding business.

Personally I drafted a letter to my representatives telling them I am strongly opposed to this legislation for a number of reasons. Generally speaking, getting government involved in anything makes a greater more expensive mess of a situation.

We all know there are puppy mills out there which do not have the animal’s welfare in mind. My issue is the proposed legislation is nothing more than a feel good bill which will put an extra strain on the wrong group, breeders who are doing a good job.

Because most small breeders don’t cut corners, they love the dogs too much they are not making large profits, and now with the government trying to step in a add additional costs there will be an additional force shoving the small breeder towards throwing in the towel – shifting breeding back towards the group who are the offenders – puppy mills.

I took this off the AKC site, but let’s look at some of the bill language:

Any breeder with six or more intact adult females will be forced to comply with the requirements of HB 1046. An adult dog is defined as one who is over 20 weeks of age. This threshold is both arbitrary and overreaching as it does not focus on the number of litters or puppies produced and sold.

If a veterinarian is part of the inspection team and determines there is a substantial risk to the health and welfare of an animal, including, but not limited to, disease or pain, the veterinarian may immediately euthanize the animal. Let’s face it- if these animals are slated to go to a shelter already – what do you think the shelter is going to be lobbying the vet on site to do with these animals?

It will be almost impossible for smaller breeders and dog owners who maintain their dogs in their own residential premises to comply with the unreasonable building standards required by HB 1046.

Under HB 1046, the amount of space required of each dog is based on the dog’s weight. There is no scientific or accepted husbandry basis for these requirements.

Animals may not be tethered or leashed as a means of confinement. Anyone here use a chain gang or a stake out? Not anymore according to this legislation.

There is a reason the AKC is strongly opposed to this bill – it is horrible legislation. Remember who the AKC is – a club of dog clubs – not some huge corporate entity, they know what they are talking about on this one.

I could go on and on about this one, but they vote today ( 15th ) on this. Here’s hoping the government sticks to what they know – over taxing us, and stays out of the dog breeding business.

Date of Article: March 15, 2007

Please be advised that Minnesota HF 1046, the Dog and Cat Breeders Act, has been pulled from today’s agenda for the House Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee. The bill was to be considered at 6:30PM today.

Date of Article: March 15, 2007

Please be advised that Minnesota HF 1046, the Dog and Cat Breeders Act, has been pulled from today’s agenda for the House Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee. The bill was to be considered at 6:30PM today.

Thanks for the update.

Thanks for the update.

Fwd from my local rep…

Robert,

Thank you for your input on this issue. I do not serve on committees that will hear this bill, but I will be alert to it, should it make it to the full Senate. Opposition is increasing for a variety of reasons, including from Minnesota Farm Bureau.

Sincerely,

Pat Pariseau

Fwd from my local rep…

Robert,

Thank you for your input on this issue. I do not serve on committees that will hear this bill, but I will be alert to it, should it make it to the full Senate. Opposition is increasing for a variety of reasons, including from Minnesota Farm Bureau.

Sincerely,

Pat Pariseau

Thanks for keeping us updated on this.

Thanks for keeping us updated on this.

From what I can tell this bill is still waiting for it’s vote.

Here’s the link to the bill status:

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF1046&ssn=0&y=2007

From what I can tell this bill is still waiting for it’s vote.

Here’s the link to the bill status:

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF1046&ssn=0&y=2007

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1046.0.html&session=ls85
This is a short cut to the proposed bill itself. If you don’t feel that this will affect you as a non breeder if it is passed you are perhaps mistaken. Please read.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1046.0.html&session=ls85
This is a short cut to the proposed bill itself. If you don’t feel that this will affect you as a non breeder if it is passed you are perhaps mistaken. Please read.