February 28. 2009 16:14

Hi Kristin,

Thank you so much for being active on this very important issue, and for blogging about it and providing the links to make action easier for us.

I am unclear on one thing you said regarding Sharon Harmon. When you said, "...echoed my feeling that the bill doesn't go far enough. She repeated over and over that the minimum standards set out in the bill was that the cage has to be big enough for the dog to lie down, stand up and turn around." does that mean that the cages need to be larger than just described, and that there is a more preferred, recommended size?

(personally, I'd prefer the practice be eliminated altogether, and that all animals be transported be with an accompanying caregiving human at all times, I'm just trying to understand the specifics here.)

I haven't read the entire bill yet (tired...brain not fully operational today!), but I will definitely read it and contact my Senators & Representatives.

Thank you! Woof woof!

Liz Moore

March 2. 2009 10:02

Thank-you Kristin for being part of such an important issue and for providing links to make it easy for me to continue to support animals.

Your description of the hearing room made me feel like I was there. And more important than your one minute testimonial was your presence and the presence of all involved, which even if it moves one person, it will have served in ways that are immeasurable. I think Eleanor Roosevelt said it best when she said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Cheryl Janis

March 4. 2009 10:49

Responsible hobby/show breeders already follow most of the requirements set forth by HB 2470 regarding the sell of puppies. Responsible hobby/show breeders do not cage their animals either.

What I object to is the number limit on how many intact dogs a person can own over the age of four months. What happened to the constitutional rights of the people to own personal property, as that is what dogs are considered to be in Oregon.
"OR Statute ORS 609.020 - Dogs are hereby declared to be personal property," which means a person can own as many dogs as they want to. Responsible dog owners already know their limits and don't need to be told how many dogs they can own!

And why is there no wording in the bill singling out puppy mills? And why are pet stores exempt from this bill? Don't you realize that they get their puppies from puppy mills? Responsible hobby breeders don't place their puppies in pet stores to be sold!

While this bill has good intentions, it is flawed. OR Statute ORS 167.310-390 comprises the Oregon anti-cruelty laws which are some of the toughest in the nation. Why not enforce the laws already on the books?

In my opinion HB 2470 needs to be withdrawn.

Teresa White

March 4. 2009 11:23

I am responding today because I am concerned about House Bill 2470, a measure that imposes numerous regulations on anyone owning ten or more intact dogs and limits the number of dogs a person can own. As a tax payer and responsible dog breeder I ask that you oppose this burdensome and ineffective legislation.

I have been breeding and showing Pomeranians for many years. I am the current Columbia Pom Club Pres. Our club is invloved in public education about our breed and many of our members are invlived in rescue. We also sponsor community dog events. My husband and I breed and show Poms with our 4 children. We moved our family out to the country so that we could give our dogs more room to run and HAVE THE FREEDOM OF OWNING MORE THAN 5. We do not keep our dogs caged. We pay to have a kennel license which means a county worker comes to our home to inspect our property and our dogs. We also register all of our dogs with the AKC which visits once a year to make sure all of our records are in order. We do health testing (heart, eyes, thyroid, knees...) on our dogs and spend many many thousands of dollars at our local vet to ensure that they are in good health.

Before even PLANNING a litter, I spend many many hours going over pedigrees and asking about the genetic history of the family so that the dogs I produce are of the best quality I can make. Hundreds of thousands of dollars goes into all this work and I do it not because I make money at selling my puppies (I WISH!!) I don't break even! I do it because I love my dogs, I love figuring out who to breed to who to make the best show dogs I can, I love my breed and I want to make an impact. I screen anyone who is interested in buying a puppy from me and turn down people who I don't think will be a good match. I get letters from past buyers telling me how much they love their puppies. I have contracts I require be signed by buyers to ensure they take good care of my puppies and for the life of the dog for whatever reason I will ALWAYS take any dog I bred back if the person is unable or unwilling to keep them. MOST BREEDERS I KNOW DO THIS. I encourage puppy classes and CGC training along with obedience. And if the dog is worthy-I encourage (and have successfully trained several) to start showing their dogs-it is a healthy fun loving sport.
I remain in contact with my buyers and get calls day or night if they ever need me. I provide ALL new owners with a puppy care booklet along with history of Poms, health, AKC papers (limited if they are not to be bred). And most times I will spay or neuter the dogs I do not feel represent the standard enough to be bred BEFORE they go to a new home.

HB 2470 would become an obstacle for the ones that ARE following the laws-the ones who DO the genetic testing-the ones who ARE responsible about the puppies they produce it will have no affect on those you are trying to regulate-the puppymills. I don t know if the expense would be worth the battle considering how much we already spend on our dogs.

House Bill 2470 will not improve the welfare of dogs in Oregon, but it will hurt responsible breeders who strive to raise healthy, well cared-for dogs and work to ensure that these puppies are placed with responsible owners. Animal limit laws are difficult to enforce and do not address the underlying issues of responsible ownership and proper dog care. And how do you propose that enforcement gets paid for?
Honestly?? Does Oregon have extra money to throw at dog breeders? With everything that is going wrong in this country we have an outlet that does not hurt anyone and here we are being attacked. We take good care of our animals and pay a lot to do it. I have 4 children in the Oregon public school system (of which I am the PTSO Pres for the local Jr/Sr High school-where I volunteer MANY hours) and I know of lots of places that our tax dollars would be better spent.

Rather than focusing on ownership limits, concentrating animal control efforts on dogs whose behavior demonstrates that they are a problem for the community, and investigating credible animal cruelty complaints would be a much better use of taxpayer funds.

I respectfully ask that you support responsible owners and breeders by withdrawing House Bill 2470.

Another solution to what many honest breeders have concerns with may be to require non performance dogs be spayed and neutered. Dogs who are purhcased as pets should be spayed and neutered. NOT the people who's dogs are utilized in the obedience, agility, confirmation or service fields.

Sincerely,
Patricia Inman

Patricia Inman

March 4. 2009 13:19

Kristin, thank you for explaining.


liz

Liz Moore

March 4. 2009 13:29

I see that breeders have strong feelings about this, and it appears they feel the bill will negatively impact them.

How about responsible breeders banding together, combining their knowledge and efforts with veterinarians and others active in the animal welfare area, and coming up with a bill themselves, which protects dogs'/cats'/other animals' rights and serves to require humane treatment, as well as protects responsible breeders and their humane practices?

It seems that the breeders have a lot of knowledge in this area, and have a lot at stake, so why not? If we all care about the welfare of the dogs and cats, then those with the most knowledge and influence should put that to good use and come up with the proposed legislation.

To be completely frank, I cannot and will not support anything that will protect irresponsible breeders, whether it affects responsible breeders or not. I don't really care about the breeders...no one is forcing them to be a breeder. I care about the welfare and rights of animals. And I am not alone in that.

Liz Moore

March 9. 2009 13:18

I've wondered the same things, and more.

From the myriad of breeder complaints I've read online, it has become clear to me that the breeders are primarily interested in protecting their own interests, rather than in protecting the welfare of dogs.

The hostility that comes across from many breeders is very interesting...what in the world could incite such hostility and defensiveness, when a bill is intended and introduced for the protection of the very animals the breeders purport to love.

Liz Moore

March 27. 2009 09:55

Liz, Kristin,

Valid questions. The problem is misunderstanding. I too testified on 2/23, and I was a member of the work group that followed. Let me clarify from the opposition's perspective what the issues are: First, we are not opposed to regulation. In fact, we are in favor of legislation that is crafted in a way that will be effective. I personally with input from many other breeders presented a re-draft of a bill that would do just that - provide an effective means of shutting down puppy mills, without harming responsible breeders and other professionals. I in fact, am in favor of all breeders being licensed. We already do that on a federal level (USDA), we could easily do it on a local level, and it would work to accomplish everything HB 2470 claims it would do.

What you are calling hostility and defensiveness is actually frustration due to the sponsors of this bill clearly demonstrating that they are unwilling to consider our concerns and proposed solutions. We are not opposed to regulation, adn we certainly are just as appalled by puppy mills as anyone.

HB 2470 will NOT achieve its stated intent. It offers nothing for enforcement, and it attempts to improve the lives of dogs only by limiting the number of intact dogs any person can have in their care. It does nothing to address care standards.

Ask yourself these questions: If the intent is to improve the care of animals, then isn't it obvious that the legislation must identify what a minimum standard of care should be? Do you not agree that a person who would neglect or abuse dogs can just as easily abuse one dog as 20 dogs? Do you not agree that it is unreasonable to expect a breeder to provide a guarantee that essentially requires them to produce genetically perfect animals? Is it reasonable that the breeder should be sued for up to three and one-half times the price of a puppy if the pup develops a health condition that was not present or not detectable when the puppy was sold? Is there any veterinarian who can say that genetic perfection is possible?

With respect to the numeration limits that HB 2470 imposes, consider the fact that many professional trainers and show handlers would effectively be limited to the number of clients they would be allowed to serve at any given time - and the dogs they are training or showing aren't being bred. These are the reasons for opposition to the bill, and these are the reasons for the opposition's frustration.

We are in favor of regulation properly written and effectively applied. We are opposed to HB 2470 because it will fail to stop puppy mills, and while failing that, it will harm the responsible people who should be protected.

Jeff Jennings

March 31. 2009 18:12

Jeff,

I'm glad to hear that you and other breeders are working towards introducing legislation that sounds like it would be of benefit to dogs & puppies. You seem like the type of person who should be breeding, and you may be a good advocate for responsibility and care in the entire 'industry' (or 'field', if that sounds too cold, which is not my intent).

You may not have come across it, but there is a lot of hostility & defensiveness out there on this subject, I wasn't necessarily referring to anyone who has posted here. The problem is, They Are Many, and their voices (and posts) are so loud that the din of their self-serving cries is drowning out those of you who are approaching this in a responsible, thoughtful, useful way. Unfortunately, that's how these things usually go, and it works negatively - it results in self-sabotage as it ultimately makes the 'audience' tune out. IOW, folks get tired of listening to complaining in the interest of...self-interest.

You, on the other hand, are taking action. I appreciate you providing this information and speaking out, and any work you are doing to try to help the dogs and puppies. Please don't give up - laws can, and should, be improved upon as time goes on. Even if this piece of legislation isn't perfect, it's a good start, and doesn't negate future legislation that improves things.

Have you considered posting your re-draft online and starting a grass-roots movement? The People just elected a President - don't count us out on something that's "the right thing to do" and needed. There are lots of effective communication tools, such as Twitter, Facebook, etc.

I'm interested - what does your proposal include? How do you propose enforcement? How do you address care standards?

To answer one of your questions, while it's possible that a person could abuse or neglect one dog as easily as 20, it's far less likely and isn't nearly as 'easy'. Taking care of one dog is...well, about 20 times easier than taking care of 20. I have 3 critters at home, and it's a huge difference from having one.

As for lawsuits regarding genetic problems, that's a dicey subject and I can't answer the questions as you posed them - it's far more complicated than that. But I do think the public has been screwed for a very long time by unscrupulous breeders; and I think puppies and dogs have suffered for a very long time due to unscrupulous breeders, and I think responsibility should be required - which also lessens the chances that puppies and dogs will be born and suffer for the purpose of someone making $money$. That sickens me, and is one of the foremost issues in my mind.

In terms of trainers and show handlers, I'm not sure that's much of an argument for opposing a bill that aims to help dogs and puppies. It does not trump...well, anything, really, and doesn't sway my opinion in your direction at all. Frankly, you have a better argument if you don't include that...nobody cares, particularly when it's up against working towards the welfare of animals.

Liz Moore

April 8. 2009 12:46

I think as a breeder, Vet Tech, former Animal Control Parks Officer and some one who has helped with rescue for many years, House Bill 2470 DOES NOT define what a puppy mill actually is, sets unrealistic puppy warranties as puppies are not manufactured goods and violates constitutional rights. Similar bills that passed have already been found to be unconstitutional.

This bill has been incorrectly dubbed the "puppy mill bill", when in fact it's sole purpose from the very beginning was to be a restrictive breeding bill. I have no issue at large with setting clear cut guidelines on responsible breeding practices. And I highly support a bill that is specifically designed to stop puppy mills. However this bill is not an anti puppy mill bill.

That being said, the current bill does not define a puppy mill, gives loop wholes to the number one seller of puppy mill dogs; retail pet stores. Further, why would we want to exempt a retail pet store from having to offer a warranty on the dogs they sell? This bill allows too many exclusions from the very organizations that should be required to have minimum of care standards such as rescues, shelters and animal research facilities. This bill does NOTHING to clarify what exactly is a rescue or shelter. I see people all the time claim to be a rescue and they simply aren't.

I like many, want to see puppy mills be stopped. I want to see companion quality and mix breed dogs be spayed and neutered. I want to see Scamps go out of business with regards to selling substandard sick dogs, cats, etc.

What I want is to see a bill that clearly defines reputable breeding versus back yard or puppy mill breeding. No loopholes for any one, we should all be held accountable to the same standards of care. I want a bill is enforceable. And an Oregon budget that supports existing animal services. If we can't support what we currently have, you certainly cannot support additional services. And I want to see a commitee who is working on the bill to actually consider the consequences of a vague bill, listen to reputable breeders and keep our constitutional rights in mind.

We also need to understand that similar pro animal legislation in the form of anti slaughter horse laws have backfired and there are more starving horses now than ever before. People are literally dumping livestock because they cannot afford to care for them. Vet's won't euthanize young, otherwise healthy horses, rescues are full and you can't give away a horse, let a lone sell one. Shouldn't we have addressed the potential consequences of the bill before passing it? I think we may see similar things occur with this bill because it is so vague and has left so much unaddressed.

Lastly, if people were so incensed by the lack of care puppy mills give their dogs, then WHY would we exclude animal research facilities from having to give set care standards and WHY if we care so much for the welfare of dogs who are bred, are we not moving to see animal research facilities abolished and pet stores who sell substandard dogs put out of business. But that is NOT what this bill accomplished.

I think people, in their strong desire to see puppy mills closed would rather give up their rights, then decline poorly written legislation and urge for a better written, clearly defined, enforceable bill that sets rules for EVERY ONE.

Jes

April 10. 2009 11:49

Jes, you seem to have a lot of knowledge in this area, so as I've posted elsewhere here, why not band together with others of like-mind and start working on proposed legislation? Nothing is perfect in it's early stages - additional legislation can and should be passed to improve upon things. Doing nothing makes us all complicit; we have to start somewhere, and then we should proceed to continue to improve things.

Liz Moore