6

Two bills came through my email this week that have left me just this side of speechless.  These would be Arizona HB2375 (Possessing Dangerous Wildlife Prohibited) and Maryland SB505 (Pet Stores – Sale of Dogs Less than 9 Months of Age Prohibited).  Let’s review the fun points.

Arizona HB2375, Possessing Dangerous Wildlife Prohibited

The title sounds great doesn’t it?  Let’s take a look at the animals that are included in clause “a person shall not own, possess, keep, harbor, import or transport into this state, have custody or control of or propagate dangerous wildlife” As written in the bill “For the purposes of this section, “dangerous wildlife” means the following animals and all hybrids, whether bred in the wild or in captivity”:

  • All species of the order carnivora.  Common names include: carnivores, skunks, raccoons, bears, foxes and weasels.: What the bill doesn’t point out is that the order carnivora also includes ALL DOGS AND CATS!
  • All species of the following families of the order artiodactyla. including the family bovidae.  Common names include:  bison (buffalo), duiker, antelope, gazelles, goats and sheep: What the bill doesn’t point out is that bovidae also includes COWS as well as goats and sheep! (Although there is an exception for Water Buffalo, Bison, American Bison & Buffalo
  • Don’t forget that the bill also includes practically every variety of non-mammalian pet

I don’t know what possibility is more frightening.   Do the bill sponsors not understand the consequences of the legislation they have put forth? Or do they understand and hope the citizens don’t understand until too late?

Arizona HB2375, Possessing Dangerous Wildlife Prohibited: sponsored by Chad Campbell (D), Cloves C. Campbell Jr (D), Kyrsten Sinema (D), Nancy Young Wright (D), Edward Ableser (D)

Maryland SB505 (Pet Stores – Sale of Dogs Less than 9 Months of Age Prohibited)

At least this one is clear in the title.  The purpose of the bill? “A RETAIL PET STORE IN THE STATE MAY NOT DISPLAY, SELL, DELIVER, OFFER FOR SALE OR ADOPTION, BARTER, AUCTION, GIVE AWAY, OR 14 OTHERWISE TRANSFER OR DISPOSE OF A DOG LESS THAN 9 MONTHS OF AGE.”

  • Exemptions?
  • Breeders who sell directly to the buyer
  • Public or Private humane societes (not to be confused with the HSUS) and non-profit animal adoption organizations
  • Adoption events operated by humane societes (not to be confused with the HSUS) and non-profit animal adoption organizations (i.e. rescues) out of or in connection with a retail pet store
  • Problems with the bill?
    • Optimum bonding in dogs occurs up to the 12 week mark as does the foundation of early training. The adolescent phase in dogs (typically 8-14 months) is the TOUGHEST for most owners to deal with.  Way to set families up for failure.
    • The blatent double standard.  Its ok to ‘adopt’ dogs under 9 months so long as a humane society or rescue is ‘involved’.  So it is an improvement for the dogs to come from a source where even LESS is known about the dog’s health/background/history?  Again, way to set families up for failure
    • The blatent attempt to make it impossible for people to raise dogs for a living and to force the ‘entry price’ up on dog ownership. anyone heard of the concept of supply and demand?  What about material costs?
  • Potential future problems
    • Future editing could be ESPECIALLY problematic.  ‘Tweaking’ of legislation does not undergo anywhere near the same level of public notification as the initial passing of a bill.  It wouldn’t take much adjustment of the exemptions and/or age of sale to make selling OR adopting a dog essentially illegal.

    Again, I don’t know what possibility is more frightening.   Do the bill sponsors not understand the consequences of the legislation they have put forth? Or do they understand and hope the citizens don’t understand until too late?

    Maryland SB505, Pet Stores – Sale of Dogs Less than 9 Months of Age Prohibited:  sponsored by Lisa Gladden (D), George W. Della Jr. (D), Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D), Catherine Pugh (D)

    To those who think that these issues could never happen?  I have two words: WAKE UP!

    6 Responses to “Bills Beyond Belief, Arizona and Maryland”

    1. Karen says:

      When are these idiots going to wake up? This is how they waste our time while our Country crumbles?

    2. Guest says:

      Notice that the above mentioned politicians are all Democrats? Sends a clear message of who DOESN'T read before signing on to a bill.

    3. Kay says:

      You make good points about the possible increase on the 'entry price' of dog ownership as well as issues with supply and demand. However, this particular statement troubles me: "The blatent attempt to make it impossible for people to raise dogs for a living and to force the ‘entry price’ up on dog ownership."

      I have bought the majority of my dogs from breeders and in the future will probably breed a few litters myself. But what's understood in the circles I run in is that if you're making money by breeding dogs, there may be a problem there. Between the money spent on health testing (hips, eyes, ears, etc.) and the time & money spent on training and possibly competing with the dog, responsible dog breeding is not a money making business. Why would a person be raising dogs for a living?? There is absolutely no reason to just "raise dogs for a living." That, IMO, is irresponsible and is what contributes to the fuel of the AR's fire. Half the dogs in shelters are from accidental litters, John Doe breeding his pretty dog to Jane Doe's pretty dog, and people breeding "for a living."

      The breeders I know work hard to ensure that each litter is planned in order to "improve" the breed. Of course accidents happen, but with responsible breeders those are few and far between. I could not imagine just breeding dogs to "make a living." That's what jobs are for.

      I should note that I have serious issues with this bill. But I had to address that statement that was made in the analysis you wrote.

      K

    4. FreedomFighter says:

      I would like to reply to the above statement posted by Kay.

      Kay,

      I too have read and heard it said that if dog breeding is done 'right' one would be lucky to break even. This makes no sense to me. Time and effort put into a job well done should be profitable.

      You asked, "Why would a person be raising dogs for a living??" Well because who better to do it than someone who can be with them all day and night? How can a person who is away at an office all day raise a litter of puppies in the middle of July inside their air conditioned home be there to let them out to potty? Where will that person be when their bitch goes into labor at 1:00 in the afternoon, or in the wee hours of the morning like 3AM? How much time can possibly be spent observing the ever emerging personalities to insure proper placement in the right homes?

      Do you really believe breeding one litter per year or less will produce the number of puppies equal to the number of good homes wanting them? Not to mention such limited breeding does nothing to improve the breed as so many self-touting ethical breeders claim is their mission. If I buy a health guaranteed puppy from you and three months later the puppy dies from a genetic disorder I don't want to wait 18 months or longer for a replacement.

      I want to purchase my puppy from a professional breeder, someone who is devoted to their vocation. Vocation. I like that word. It means a calling. Yes, I would love to purchase my puppy from the breeder who is truly devoted to providing for sale a well bred, well raised puppy, and to compensate them accordingly. There. They will have just profited from the sale of that puppy. What an awesome exchange.

    5. Kay says:

      Again, FreedomFighter, of all the breeders I know who do all of the things you mentioned above – NONE of them profit from doing so. That is what I'm referring to when I say doing it for a living – making a profit off of it, which is the statement I'm addressing in the article. Why don't they? Because money and time (yes! time costs!) is put into training, trialing, health testing, and raising the litter. People who are breeding "for a living" (meaning they have enough breeding pairs and produce enough offspring to support themselves on a steady income from year to year) have nowhere near the time or monetary resources necessary to ensure that each dog they're breeding is actually an exemplary example of their breed: meaning that they do what the breed was designed to do, do it well, and are free from whatever are considered to be the major genetic health risks within their breed.

      Btw, a professional breeder is totally different than someone who is "breeding for a living". I, too, purchase my **** from professional breeders and NOT from people who just "breed for a living".

    Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. uberVU - social comments - February 18, 2010

      Social comments and analytics for this post…

      This post was mentioned on Twitter by AR_HR: New #blog post: Bills Beyond Belief, Arizona and Maryland – http://tinyurl.com/yfy6ay3

    Leave a Reply