A modest proposal for Commercial Breeders

Last week, investigators in Oklahoma seized over 100 dogs -- mostly Cocker Spaniels and Miniature Poodles -- from a puppy mill in eastern Oklahoma.  The dogs were without food and water, in small cages (many without any access to sunlight) and left to walk in their own feces. Nine dogs were found dead -- and several others were found eating each other.

For decades, commercial breeders and even smaller hobby breeders have fought against state-level legislation that would put regulations on large-scale breeding operations. And  make no mistake, I'm no fan of over-legislation -- especially when there are other ways of solving the problems.

A couple of quick thoughts on breeding - -just to let people know where I'm coming from:

1) I respect the right of breeders to supply puppies that there is a demand for. If there is a demand for certain types of puppies, then they have the right to supply them.  And I've heard too many stories of people denied adoptions to know there isn't demand there.

2) I really respect the right for small-scale breeders who work hard to bring out the best in individual breed traits to do their craft. I do think that is important and a lot of people do a great job at this. 

3) I really believe that the majority of people who breed are not horrible people -- and that most want what is best for the animals. Obviously there are some who are just there to make a buck, and they're dragging everyone else down with them.

4) All that said, I don't think the majority of people need a purebred dog for any reason. Most people, for their needs, would be just as well off with a shelter dog -- and would be better off adopting an adult dog and not a puppy as puppies tend to be infinitely more work. 

5) Any breeding operation should have good standards for how the dogs are cared for.

However, the time has come for responsible commercial breeders to craft their own legislation on regulating themselves.

The passing of Proposition 2 in California by a 65% margin should send a clear signal to anyone who raises any types of animals for a living -- that people CARE how animals are treated. They don't believe that animals are "products" that can be mistreated.  And if 65% of people are willing to vote in favor of better treatment for Chickens, they sure as heck are going to vote for better treatment of companion animals.

Incidences like the one in Oklahoma continue to create an image in people's minds of what a commercial breeding operation is like. Oprah has started highlighting some of the worst in these operations. The term "puppy mill" has become almost synonymous among the general public with commercial breeding operations.  I don't think public perception would support commercial breeding operations.  And the time has come for the responsible commercial breeders, and hobby breeders, to create their own restrictions that they can live with, but will put an end to these abusive puppy mill operations.  (And yes, I make a very clear distinction between the two terms "puppy mill" and "commercial breeder'.)

If it were me, here's what I would propose (I'm open to suggestions):

1) Mandatory licensing for all breeding operations.  If the operation produces more than 20 puppies a year (I'm flexible on this number, but the idea is if they produce more than 2 litters a year, they should be subject to regulation), they should have to get a license. Levy SEVERE fines on any operation that is found that is not licensed. This should be ok with any reputable breeding group as they would be licensed.

2) All licensing fees should go to the state department of agriculture to fund inspections officers.

3) All licensed operations should have to meet a minimum standard for care: cleanliness, health of the animals, size of the kennels, etc. Inspections would take place at least twice per year by the inspections officers. At least one of the inspections should be an "unannounced" inspection.

4) Any kennel in consistant violation of codes could be closed down.

Under this proposal, most 'hobby' breeders would be exempt from inspection. I think it would become impractical to inspect every hobby breeder out there.  While this would allow for the "backyard breeders" to go uninspected, theoretically, local animal control officers could get abuse/neglect charges in severe cases. 

Commercial breeders, that are actually managing the care of their dogs appropriately will be relatively unaffected (assuming that most states have some type of licensing requirement).  The licensing fee, if kept at a reasonable cost, would be a cost of doing business....and would not be "unfair" because most businesses in this country require some type of license.  They would also benefit from less competitions as unlicensed breeders would be run out of business.

The people who are mistreating and abusing animals will be negatively impacted the most - -and that's exactly what we want.

I know most commercial and hobby breeders don't want regulations. I understand. But the time has come where you may soon no longer have an option. Public perception is not in your favor. It would be best if the breeders got out in front of this create something that will get rid of the folks that are causing horrible PR for "breeding" so that everyone is not shut down.  If they don't get out in front of it, they will likely end up with something more restrictive that they won't have any control over.  The choice is theirs, at least for now.

Comments

[Robert Garnett]

All breeders should have to spay/neuter their animals prior to selling to non breeders(ie the public).If not they in my books cannot be considered responsible breeders!RG.

[MichelleD]

That is impossible...I personally don't want an animal that has been altered at 8 weeks. NUMEROUS health problems have been found in dogs with pediatric spay/neuter. And what if I want to show my dog? - they can't be altered. And how are you going to define a breeder?

We have to consider the differences between what we *think* is a good idea and what actually makes effective legislation.

Right now, the most effective law we could pass are harsh penalties for failing to license you're breeding operation. Unlicensed and therefore unINSPECTED kennels are the biggest offenders and from what we have heard from Rep Beth Low is there are virtually no penalties for non-compliance.

[Selma]

I think the members of authorized kennel clubs, such as AKC, UKC and ADBA should have some sort of breeder accreditation process. So it would be policing of breeders by breeders - not the KCs themselves because there's conflict of interest. The AKC makes a lot of money from large breeders.

You are right, they should be proactive because otherwise the AR gang (which wants to eliminate breeders and labels all breeders 'puppy millers') will gain ground.

There are laws in place with respect to cruelty and neglect. I would think a voluntary program, where breeders would actually invite inspection and would receive some kind of certificate would work best. Then, educate people to look for that certificate, keep records so people could check to see if there had been complaints, etc - kind of like a BBB for dog breeders.

The reason a lot of hobby breeders would oppose this is due to stupid regulations about kennel licences, pet limits, etc.

Those regulations are counter-productive. Since the dedicated hobbyist will breed and show dogs whether local regulations allow it or not, they will hide (as will someone who is 'over the limit', petwise). It seems to me that a district that was thinking straight would want to openly welcome any and all breeders (and owners), large or small. Obviously, you can't keep 50 dogs on a tiny lot in an urban area comfortably, so you need some property standards for the larger operations.

However, if somebody has a couple of show dogs, breeds a few litters a year, or has three dogs instead of two, why is that a big deal? Why not collect the licence fees?

Then you know how many dogs you have, who is doing what, collect more money.

What happens is that these breeders are always worried about being found out. That gives camera hogs like the HSUS the opportunity to encourage raids, seizure of dogs, etc, and subsequently paint them as either dog-fighters, puppy millers, etc - and nobody but their friends will know the truth.

Any reputable breeder sells pups on a non-breeding contract if they are pets. Any good owner usually gets their pet neutered at the appropriate age.

I only know one breeder who sends pups out neutered, because it's a Toy breed and he's paranoid. I don't agree with him because of the health problems that can cause, but it's his call. Most breeders I know thoroughly screen buyers and trust them - just as the buyers are trusting the breeder.

People who get pups from shops, etc, should also be able to trust that their pet came from a good kennel, which is why I like Brent's suggestions.

[S Kennedy]

i agree with most of what everyone has said, and i have been contacted by one of the main comml kennel subscription magazine editors. i think we can do both things, help raise the awareness of those in this line that are doing a good job, and that there are always bad apples in every group of anything. if no one has any objections i will bring up some of the suggestions cited by all of you. my concerns are that the ARs are going to convince people that pets cannot be purchased bec they are not property. and that has been started years ago, but they are pitching it more widely now. thanks to all.

[Barb]

One problem I can think of with regulations is that in many areas breeder requirements preclude raising puppies in a home environment. Obviously, a large scale commercial kennel that produces hundreds of puppies a year can't raise them all in the house - and shouldn't try, as keeping things clean would be virtually impossible. But a small scale breeder who has 2 or even 3 or more litters a year (especially if you have a small breed that routinely has litters of just 2 or 3 pups) can raise them all in the house, if you're willing to work at it.
I think we all would agree that a home is normally the BEST place for a puppy to be raised. So as a hobby breeder, I would be concerned that if I lived in a city where I had to get a breeders license I would have to build a kennel to meet the requirements. It's not the cost of building a kennel that concerns me, or the cost of a license. It's the fear that I would be told I'd have to keep my dogs in a kennel. They would be SO pissed!! LOL But seriously, that is the way many of these things are worded. If they include small scale breeders - and 2 litters a year is still "small scale" although the thought of raising that many pups makes me feel faint - then the regs have to allow keeping dogs in the home.

[Barb]

Oh, and I think we need to come up with a better term than "hobby breeder". The animal-rights types are starting to jump on that: "how can breeding dogs be a 'hobby'?"
Of course, it's not breeding dogs that is the hobby, it's what we DO with those dogs. For us, it's agility and obedience and other types of competition. For others it might be hunting, or herding trials, or S&R, or water sports or whatever. We just breed so we'll have the best possible dogs to share our hobby with us.

[Cait]

I think I see some good points here, but I have problems with others. I am involved in three breeds, including one rare breed with a gene pool of less than 30 dogs in the US. Two litters could mean two puppies in toy breeds which are prone to singletons (Chihuahua and papillon people, I am looking at you!)- or 20+ puppies in the case of large or medium-sized dogs who tend to produce very large litters like many of the hound breeds.

There's also the problem of incrimentalism. For example, in CO, initially you had to be licensed if you had more than 25 dogs total (including rescues/fosters/altered pets.) which most everyone agreed was pretty reasonable. Then the number got revised downwards, year after year. It's currently at 10. It's projected to go to SIX! This is problematic. I don't know anyone who can maintain a breeding program that has any sort of systematic vision for improving their breed that can stay at those numbers. That doesn't allow you to grow out prospects, or keep pets that you know darn well aren't breeding quality. It means you must make the choice - do I love my breed or my individual dog more? Is this a fair choice to ask people to make? Because frankly? Good breeders MUST love their breed enough to say "My beloved dog is wonderful and has many great qualities but breeding her is NOT in the best interest of the breed."

Dog limits have contributed heavily to popular sire syndrome, IMO. Almost no one maintains stud dogs anymore unless they have a kennel situation and/or is rich enough that the dog is campaigned. One is looked down upon for breeding to a non-champion male, but sometimes the choice is breed to a male who isn't finished before he's neutered and placed in a pet (or working!) home because he's got good qualities but isn't a 'star quality' dog. And this just perpetuates the mess of breeding only to champion dogs, which isn't the only - or the most important- measure of quality at all.

[Brent]

Cait,

I am very open in this proposal to the exact wording. Obviously there will be specifics that only people who are involved with particular breeds will be more aware of. The point is to differentiate between the high volume commercial breeders (who are running this as a business) vs the people who are "hobby" breeders -- most of whom lose money on their hobby.

So I don't know what the exact numbers need to be. 20-25 sounds about right. 6 sounds ridiculously low. The point is for the folks that are running good businesses to pay a license fee, and those dollars go back into the state for monitoring the industry. That way we can clean up "puppy millers" so that it creates a better reputation for the entire industry, provides better dogs for buyers, and provides a better life for dogs.

The numbers are less important to me than cleaning up the whole industry so that everyone benefits...and so the animal rights groups who seem to want to push everything to the extreme don't get the final say in where the lines are drawn.

[Cait]

I think the problem is that no one agrees on numbers. :P Personally, I think 25-30 puppies per year is the upper end of reasonable- but as to adult dogs? I don't know. I think that tying it to puppies produced would help as far as NOT affecting retirees and non-breeding dogs towards overall numbers- but ideally, I'd like to see standardized minimums of care for non-breeding dogs too once it gets over a certain scale (I think I'd say 20 there, to be honest - but I think that would be a separate rubric than the puppy one - so you couldn't slip by by producing 24 puppies and housing 19 non-breeding dogs (I'd include intact puppies under the age of health testing and intact old dogs (especially boys! longevity is a really important trait in a stud dog! under 'non-breeding'.)

I also think standards of care need to be looked at. The laboratory/food standard is a bizaare thing to apply to a companion animal. Especially given the "Good breeders only ever have dogs in their homes, not in kennels." standard that a lot of people seem to like to apply. And it's darn hard to legislate common sense. There needs to be an appeals process that does NOT just appeal to employees of the first person making the determination, and we need to make sure that breeders (including the ones I don't like ;P) get a say in determining standards and hiring and firing inspectors, because corruption (in both directions) is a scary thing. We also need to make sure the standard is reasonable. My bedroom (where the dogs sleep) is a MESS irght now. :P I am re-organizing my closet so there are clothes ALL OVER, there's collie hair tumbleweeds, and I suspect there's a dead choohoof under the bookshelf where I can't get to it, because that corner of the room is stinky. My mother would be horrified. :P But it's NOT unsanitary or dangerous- just messy. :P The USDA standards cite people on silly things "Leaves found in enclosure." "Unsanitized bedding in cage" and miss the whole point of NOT keeping dogs in cages. It's such a complicated issue that I just don't see how we can solve it legislatively. I think the best, fastest, cheapest, simplest way is to eliminate the market for substandard dogs.

[MichelleD]

Who is this Cait person and why is she making so much sense!

I have a feeling the inspectors for kennels do the same types of things all inspectors do - apply the law based on which way the wind blows. Or even more likely, apply it more harshly to those they think will most easily comply so it looks good on the books.

ARs have made an enemy out of all breeders and in their efforts are just contributing to the increased demand for commercially bred dogs/cats.

[D4dogs]

The ARs are trying to push small "hobby" breeders out incrementally so that all that will be left are the puppy/kitten millers - and who can support that? So, once they put all the little guys out of business, they'll have only the big fat target of commercial breeders and then they'll be gone due to public outcry. Then that's everyone and they'll have achieved their goal of eliminating the source for all companion animals and no one will be able to own let alone breed a companion animal. It doesn't take a genius to see that far down the road.