[HairOfTheDog]

Most hobby breeders gladly take back any puppy or kitten that doesn't work out (my contract stipulates that the buyers MUST bring the puppy back to me if they cannot keep it for any reason)... Pet shops don't. Puppy mills don't. Most people who breed a litter from their pet don't. And the irresponsible people who let their females wander around and get bred every time they are in season certainly don't.

I was with you till you went on to say you wanted to stop this law in it's tracks. If you think pet shops and puppy mills ought to have the same health guarantees you provide anyway, why don't you want the law?

This law would attempt to ensure they WOULD!

[brytlea]

Please rephrase your question, because I'm not sure what you disagree with. I think the law is bad for hobby breeders (unwarranted government intrusion). I'm not sure what that has to do with puppy mills or pet shops. In fact, Florida already has a puppy lemon law that covers the health issue.
susie

[Calpernia]

This is a state level enforcement of PAWS that is on the table for signing at the federal level.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/awa.html

What has stalled at Federal is being pushed through at state levels to try to force federal signature.

Home breeding does not constitue puppy mills. And this new licensing rule does not consitute all situations on how animals are bred and sold.

With this new law comes animal seizer costs. If you have your animals seized, you are billed for the costs of seizing plus upkeep for where ever they are kept/housed.

This PAWS also has the same data collection and tagging as NAIS.