Dog Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Some of you may know I've been trying to help pass a bill that would ban the sale of puppies in pet stores and "order to ship" puppies in my state. Well today I went to the hearing and...it passed the committee! It needs to go to others and up the branches to get passed as a law but we passed the first level! =D It's so exciting.

It really was amazing how some of these store owners were still giving BS stories about their good breeders. Mind you, I went to 16 or 17 stores this month and there were no stores without some sort of breeder/store violations. Three of them were even on the Humane Society's "horrible hundred" puppy mills, for things like shooting the dogs in the head, leaving dead bodies out on the property and general horrendous health and sanitation conditions. Not to mention there's a store owner with 4 stores in the state that was brought up on 267 animal cruelty charges for sick, dying and dead puppies among other things.

I would also like to add to my purebred fanciers that there was an amendment made that will allow the import of purebred dogs by breeders from breeders who want to expand their breeding stock's gene pool.

Now let's hope it goes further!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Yay!

I'm not surprised at the store owners - what about the people who posted here defending puppy mills and their right to shop there?
Do you mean the person who posted the petition on this site opposing this bill? If so joke's on them because that's how I found out about it and got so heavily involved to help pass it. =P

If you don't mean that where the heck were people saying that? I want to see that thread!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Yay!

I'm not surprised at the store owners - what about the people who posted here defending puppy mills and their right to shop there?
Do you mean the person who posted the petition on this site opposing this bill? If so joke's on them because that's how I found out about it and got so heavily involved to help pass it. =P

If you don't mean that where the heck were people saying that? I want to see that thread!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
They would do that. It's insane. Seriously if anyone wants to see the craziness that's going on here Google 'east Brunswick NJ Just Pups' and you'll see all sorts of crazy reports. I think two dogs have died of distemper and rescues that pulled the remaining 60+ dogs are crowd funding for two shunt liver operations and more. One rescue alone has incurred $60,000 in vet bills from these puppies in just two months.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,928 Posts
If the bill is the same as it was before, I hope this bill doesn't pass into law and I don't support it. If the legislation hasn't been rewritten to allow the shipment of dogs from out of state without restriction, it's likely to be challenged in court (possibly by the AKC).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
@ColliesRock There are some exceptions to that rule, particularly for breeders like I said before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,928 Posts
Too, a bill passing a committee doesn't actually mean a whole lot. Lots of bills go nowhere and die after that. Some bills die after passing a senate or house. Plenty of bills go nowhere even after passing a state house and senate because of a veto.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
No, they do not because this bill is also to curtail sales from mills that ship their puppies from sites like "puppy find" and similar ones. The bill emphasizes face to face purchases of dogs and cats. While I do know there are some good breeders that will ship their dogs, I think this is going to catch more bad people than good. We may agree to disagree. But I feel that a dog fancier's inconvenience at having to pick up their puppy at the breeder and/or choose one that is closer to their home state is not as important as the protection of canine welfare, preservation of healthy purebred animals, eradicating puppy millers and protecting dog buyers from being scammed.

And you know, you can express your opinion and disagree but you really don't have to be so negative and all "Yeah, this bill might die and be nothing." I'm sorry if you don't like it but you don't need to kick my cause in the stomach and tell me that my small victory today doesn't matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,928 Posts
No, they do not because this bill is also to curtail sales from mills that ship their puppies from sites like "puppy find" and similar ones. The bill emphasizes face to face purchases of dogs and cats. While I do know there are some good breeders that will ship their dogs, I think this is going to catch more bad people than good. We may agree to disagree. But I feel that a dog fancier's inconvenience at having to pick up their puppy at the breeder and/or choose one that is closer to their home state is not as important as the protection of canine welfare, preservation of healthy purebred animals, eradicating puppy millers and protecting dog buyers from being scammed.
In that case, the bill probably won't survive the courts as it's technically unconstitutional.

I don't see a problem with banning pet stores from selling pets but putting too much restrictions on breeders only benefits puppy mills as they do not care about the laws. Animal cruelty laws and dog licenses are barely enforced as is in many areas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
@trackie88

Congratulations on passing the first step! I do think you should heed the issue that collierock brings up though as, while the first step is a great victory, the many more steps to go often become more challenging.

Your heart is in the right place, but unfortunately politics isn't just about good intentions. Re-visiting the clauses on shipment of puppies into the state (from out of state or abroad) may be worthwhile to give your bill the best chance of passing into law. There are plenty of dog enthusiasts who are not looking just for a pet, but for a hunting dog, working dog, competition dog, show dog that are not breeders and would find this no shipment clause to be a big hurdle. Nobody want's to do a round-trip drive from NJ to California (e.g.) to pick up their new expensive addition. Obviously pet-owners will happily find their next pet closer to home, but this isn't always a possibility with rarer breeds or people seeking out specific bloodlines/temperments/abilities.

And as Colliesrock pointed out, it's not state jurisdiction to dictate what can be shipped in versus what can be transported in privately. On top of that, regulations that are difficult to enforce are less likely to have the desired impact (and shipment of puppies vs private transfer of puppies is difficult to enforce in practice).

Good luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
@travelingswift I do know this. I have even suggested that to some of the more higher ups about the breeding thing, and though I don't know if it was *me* that caused them to make that amendment, it was obviously made. I also brought up the question of how they were going to prevent people from having puppies shipped here.

I know this is just the first step but it's a small victory, and right now I don't have much going for me in my life and this made me happy. In the event I was able to draft a bill myself I would change it and make it more specific to pet stores and to see if there were ways to block shipping from specific sites that only mills use to sell dogs. But we have to see how it goes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ColliesRock
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top