Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dog Breeder Licencing in Florida
vanity | 3/19/06 | me

Posted on 03/20/2006 1:01:21 PM PST by doc30

Normally, I don't post requests for help on issues, but there are a fair number of more knowlegeable animal lover Freepers than I. They may be interested and/or could offer some insight into 2 bills pending in FL.

Here are the Senate Summaries of these 2 bills coming before the Senate Agriculture Committee in FL and are to be voted on the 21st. Has anyone heard of these bills and does anyone have any idea what their impact will be?

Some have said that this will cripple the dog/cat breeders in FL and will include private, non-profit animal rescue groups as "pet dealers" and make them subject to licensing requirements. Such volunteer organizations are in no place to administer government regulations and they perform an important community function. It will also shut down home/hobby breeders. For those interested, here is a list of the committee members.

Bullard 850-487-5127
Argenziano 850-487-5017
Bennett 850-487-5078
Haridopolos 850-487-5056
Peaden 850-487-5000
Smith 850-487-5020


TOPICS: Pets/Animals
KEYWORDS: breeder; cat; dog; doggieping; florida; lisencing
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181 next last
To: sissyjane
That comment is rather irresponsible don't you think?

Not at all! I'll say it again. Show people are responsible for turning many breeds into beautiful idiots!

Labradors, Setters and Goldens that wouldn't know a game bird if it flew right into them. Collies that are dumber than a bag of hair. Cocker Spaniels that are certifiably insane.

And that doesn't account for the structural problems created by show people in many many breeds of all types. Toys that cannot breed naturally and have to give birth by C section. Displastic hock-walking German Shepherds. Great Danes that break down under their own weight and don't have the hearts to power their oversized bodies.

Show people who breed for looks alone have nearly lost the instincts and attributes that made the breeds what they originally were. And I've been there. I showed my lab for a time. If I were in charge I'd require working achievement certificates on conformation dogs before they could be called 'champion'.

I don't know you, and I don't know what breed you show. It could be that you are not to be blamed, but I suspect you've heard these criticisms of what has happened to show dogs before.

81 posted on 03/20/2006 3:01:02 PM PST by HairOfTheDog (Hobbit Hole knives for soldiers! www.freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
Then I really don't have a clue what your point is in saying that many dogs in shelters are purebreds. So what?

It was in response to someone who said most dogs in shelters were mutts, and few came from breeders. It's just not factually correct.

82 posted on 03/20/2006 3:02:44 PM PST by HairOfTheDog (Hobbit Hole knives for soldiers! www.freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Actually, if they are really bad, they may be able to tell on a prelimn now. Were the parents OFAed? Of course that is not a guarantee, but it does help improve the odds.
Also, one of my old dogs (bought as a show prospect from England) was severely dysplastic. He was never bred of course, but I kept him and he lived pretty comfortabley to age 10 (died of something else entirely). He had a little trouble getting up if he lay on the tile floor the last couple of years of his life, but he did amazingly well. And his hips were AWFUL. So, maybe, even if your friends puppy has dysplasia he will be ok, if they keep his weight down and monitor things.
And, there are other things it could be as well....
susie


83 posted on 03/20/2006 3:03:24 PM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

BOTH!!!!!!
susie


84 posted on 03/20/2006 3:03:39 PM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog

Well, at least I know where you're coming from. Thank you for spelling it out.
susie


85 posted on 03/20/2006 3:04:55 PM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog; brytlea; doc30; Calpernia

>I understand you don't want the intrusion. But you have to understand that the difference between 'hobby breeder' and 'puppy mill' is only perspective. One is a happy word and one is not. From the outside, few people could tell the difference unless they could inspect.

This law would allow for inspection and licensing action to be taken against breeders who do not maintain good standards. <

Herein lies the problem. We do not know, at this point, how the proposed law defines the word, "dealer". If you bring hobby breeders under the "dealer" definition, especially at the federal level, you get into a morass of regulations on just how your animals must be kept.

Did you realize, that individuals with USDA licensed facilities may NOT house dogs or cats, for that matter, in their HOMES???? To comply with USDA regulations, it's been estimated that a kennel building will cost approximately $100,000.00. How many "hobby breeders" can afford such a thing, even IF they lived in an area zoned for such a facility? Must they then raise and sell dogs or cats commercially, to pay for the kennel facility?

At some point, the puppy buyer needs to take some responsibility for the proliferation of puppy mills. If a puppy buyer contacts any breeder, and is horrified with the conditions of the buyer's premises, must the buyer take the puppy, simply because the seller's price was $150.00 less than the other breeders in town? According to the posts on this thread, Florida already has a "Puppy Lemon Law" (a very good thing, imho). Buyers should insist, if the seller doesn't offer it first, on the right to return the dog if buyer's vet finds a defect or disease.


86 posted on 03/20/2006 3:04:56 PM PST by Darnright (Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

"The most problematic dogs I have ever seen came from a pet store in a mall. They should all be shut down."

These pups are the hardest to potty train too. They get used to sleeping in their urine and feces in their crates. So many people adopt them because they are broken hearted about how these little ones are treated.

Sad because it only perpetuates the terrible abuse - as long as they make money - the pet stores will keep selling them.

Responsible breeders do not sell to Pet Shops.


87 posted on 03/20/2006 3:05:16 PM PST by LADY J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
Blanket statement. First off, many hobby breeders do not show in conformation, they are performance people and I think they would take great umbrance at what you just said.

No they wouldn't. It was said in response to a statement by an AKC judge that only a small percentage of registered dogs are bred from show dogs, as if the rest were some lesser quality.

My statement is that AKC show people are not always the best impact on the breed. Your performance people would agree with me.

88 posted on 03/20/2006 3:05:59 PM PST by HairOfTheDog (Hobbit Hole knives for soldiers! www.freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog

I suppose it depends on your definition of a breeder. So, I will clarify. Few of them come from hobby breeders.
susie


89 posted on 03/20/2006 3:06:00 PM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog

>>I don't know you, and I don't know what breed you show. It could be that you are not to be blamed, but I suspect you've heard these criticisms of what has happened to show dogs before.<<

My friends breed for not only "looks" as you call them-we call it breeding to the standard. We also breed for temperment, retrieving, birdiness, soundness,friendliness and most importantly health.


90 posted on 03/20/2006 3:06:57 PM PST by sissyjane (Don't be stuck on stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy; joesnuffy

I had no idea that the Amish were being irresponsible dog breeders. Are they that sloppy with their horse breeding too?


91 posted on 03/20/2006 3:07:28 PM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog

Performance people ARE show people. If you meant conformation people you should have said that. I don't know who the judge was talking about, however.
susie


92 posted on 03/20/2006 3:08:20 PM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

"Also, I think this may be just the beginning, but then again, maybe I'm paranoid about the govt getting their hands into things. I expect if this passes we will soon have other legislation out there that is even worse."

Already bad enough they are requiring Rabies vaccinations yearly when many vets have decided that once every three years is enough.


93 posted on 03/20/2006 3:08:20 PM PST by LADY J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Darnright

You raise valid concerns. I'm not familiar with the USDA stuff at all, and on that issue, I'm sure I agree with you.


94 posted on 03/20/2006 3:08:30 PM PST by HairOfTheDog (Hobbit Hole knives for soldiers! www.freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane

I think you're wasting your breath. There is a mantra out there "Show breeders have ruined this or that breed." It's pretty embedded into modern thinking, so I doubt you will do anything to erase it.
susie


95 posted on 03/20/2006 3:09:54 PM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Sofa King

"killed by a dog sex accident"????

Very few people are killed each year by dogs. Maybe 10. A huge number of children are killed each year by THEIR OWN PARENTS!
An even larger number of people are killed each year by other people. I think we need to worry about human breeding WAY more than dog breeding!!!


96 posted on 03/20/2006 3:16:40 PM PST by wndycndy (Beagles For Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: brytlea; sissyjane
Hey - I think it's too bad that more dogs aren't dual purpose. All it takes to un-embed it from the thinking is to make it untrue by proving the dogs can do their job in addition to looking beautiful before breeding them. Many breeders do that.

My only point was to counter the argument that AKC show people are assumed to be responsible in their breeding decisions. They aren't, they've made lots of detrimental breeding decisions that have been very harmful to some breeds.
97 posted on 03/20/2006 3:17:09 PM PST by HairOfTheDog (Hobbit Hole knives for soldiers! www.freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Darnright; HairOfTheDog

Darnright is right. You will have no more working dogs.


98 posted on 03/20/2006 3:17:57 PM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
Well, the other criticism of licensing is that the authority to license IS the authority to TAX, and limit activity through unreasonable fees.

True. But the real reason why this law has come about has to do with the dubious practices of the breeders themselves. The authority to license also means the authority to inspect, hold the breeder responsible and shut them down when they are found to not be in compliance.

I'm no fan of the fee for fee's sake. That's for sure.

Neither am I, but these types of laws are gaining popularity across the country right now because the rescues are sick and tired of having to deal with the mess left behind by the unrestrained breeding of unwanted animals.

99 posted on 03/20/2006 3:20:40 PM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Darnright was speaking to some USDA actions that don't appear to me to have anything to do with this particular law on this particular thread. Not sure what you mean about "no more working dogs".


100 posted on 03/20/2006 3:21:09 PM PST by HairOfTheDog (Hobbit Hole knives for soldiers! www.freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson