Puppy Mills Kitten Mills Minnesota

We do not define "opposition" as us versus them, left versus right, rural versus city, Republican versus Democrat, or liberal versus conservative.

We believe the greatest opposition is ignorance. There are those who do not understand the problem of inhumane dog and cat breeding, and, out of ignorance or fear, spread false information. The solution is education. We must all continue to educate legislators, citizens, authorities and others about the problem, what needs to be done, and why.

Below are examples of inaccurate statements about the issue and about previous breeder legislation. We've provided factual responses to opposing statements below.

For further discussion about opposing views, go to Contrasting Beliefs.

OPPOSITION TALKING POINTS

"Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts."

- President advisor Bernard Mannes Baruch, 1879-1965

NOTE: The MN Dog and Cat Breeder Regulation Bill was signed into law on May 20, 2014.

Below are statements made in previous years by the "Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance" (SAOVA) in opposition to breeder regulation. These false statements were presented to legislators by SAOVA. Factual responses are provided below.

SAOVA stated: Breeder regulation is "unnecessary because current Minnesota law already addresses animal cruelty, care and housing in animal facilities."

FACT: Minnesota had no State laws to regulate the dog and cat breeding industry. (The Dog and Cat Breeder Bill was signed into law on May 20, 2014.) Regulation of commercial dog and cat breeders gives the State of Minnesota the authority to license commercial dog and cat breeders, inspect facilities and enforce standards. This is similar to the regulation of other industries. Regulation (through licensing, inspections and enforcement) works to prevent harm before it happens. Anti-cruelty laws apply after the fact — after the animal cruelty, abuse or neglect has already occurred. Law enforcement can only investigate an problematic breeding facility if a citizen should happen upon it and report it. Due to the fact that breeding kennels are private property, inhumane breeders rarely, if ever, allow citizens/consumers access to their kennels; therefore, few complaints are filed. In addition to protecting animals from harm, regulation would also protect consumers by ensuring that a quality "product" (healthy dog or cat) is produced by State-licensed and inspected kennels.

SAOVA stated: "It is wrong to use a numerical basis to begin excessive regulation of dog breeders; numbers do not correlate to quality of care. Laws for animal welfare and to prevent animal cruelty are already in place to protect all animals whether it is one dog or one hundred."

FACT: Inhumane breeding practices and conditions can occur in breeding facilities of any size, which proves the point for regulation. A numerical basis for licensing is used in all of the 25+ states that already regulate breeding facilities. As stated in the first point above, Minnesota has no State laws that regulate the dog and cat breeding industry. Regulation helps prevent animal cruelty from happening before it occurs.

SAOVA stated: "There is insufficient data to support that this bill can be self-sustaining while not negatively impacting some of the best hobby breeders in the state. The enforcement necessary to support this sort of legislation is unreasonable."

FACT: The bill would not negatively impact breeders unless they are breaking current Minnesota cruelty statutes. Responsible breeders welcome inspections and a Minnesota "stamp of approval" of their facility. A licensing fee is a cost of doing business.

SAOVA stated: "There is no standard in place for training of inspectors and veterinarians for this purpose. The Board of Animal Health would need to be significantly expanded in order to take on the task of home inspections alone."

FACT: The Board of Animal Health currently has trained inspectors and veterinarians who oversee the inspections of numerous boarding kennels in veterinarian clinics, boarding facilities and humane societies. The Board should have no problem training an additional inspector(s).

SAOVA stated: The bill "exempts rescue groups, humane societies, and animal control authorities from the standards of care commercial breeders would have to provide should the bills be enacted."

FACT: Nonprofit organizations that rescue and adopt out animals are not in the business of breeding and selling animals for profit. Animal control facilities take in stray dogs/cats and house them until the animals are reclaimed, adopted out, turned over to rescue, or euthanized. As stated above, humane societies, among others, are already licensed and inspected by the Board of Animal Health as defined under Minn. Stat. Sec. 347.31.

SAOVA stated:The bill "duplicated provisions of the federal Animal Welfare Act and the licensing provisions of the United States Department of Agriculture, making the bills unnecessary."

FACT: For decades, only dog and cat breeders who sell wholesale (e.g., to pet shops) were required to be licensed by the USDA under the Animal Welfare Act. Breeders who sold directly to the public (through websites, classified ads, parking lots or other means) were not required to be licensed or regulated. Because so many USDA-licensed breeders were taking advantage of this loophole by dropping their USDA license and selling directly through websites, the USDA changed the definition as to who would be licensed and inspected. Even with this federal rule change, Minnesota must have its own State law to provide proper oversight locally. Further, Minnesota does not have the authority to enforce federal USDA regulations.

MISCELLANEOUS POINTS OF OPPOSITION and Responses

Many legislators in Minnesota support breeder regulation. Some legislators are undecided and need to be educated further. Other legislators oppose any form of regulation.

Statements below have been expressed by legislators or citizens in opposition. We have added factual responses to each so you are better informed as to why the points are incorrect.

Opposition states: This bill “does not get to the root of the problem and is too restrictive for conscientious breeders.”
FACT: The problem is lack of regulation for a multi-billion dollar industry that produces living “products”. Due to this lack of State oversight, inhumane breeders continue to produce unhealthy animals, causing harm to these animals as well as defrauding consumers who purchase them. Anti-cruelty laws apply after the fact — after the cruelty has already occurred and if someone, by chance, should see the deplorable conditions and report it. Regulation requires inspections and enforcement before the cruelty happens. Conscientious breeders support regulation because they know it will provide a Minnesota “stamp of approval” for their operations.

Opposition states: “The breeding industry is one that is largely self-regulated.”
FACT: There is no self-regulation. If a breed club decides they do not want another club member to stay in the club, they just ask that person to leave — there are no consequences for inhumane actions due to the fact that many of these clubs have no policies in regards to inhumane breeding practices. Also, not all breeders choose to be a part of breed clubs because the clubs are either too political or they are “just friends” gathering together. Even if a club were to confront an inhumane breeder, which they don’t, they have no authority to take legal action. None of the above helps animals who are suffering in inhumane breeding facilities.

Opposition states: “Consumers possess the ability to determine whether or not the facility where they obtain their pet is legitimate and responsible.”
FACT: Many consumers still find their pet through websites or ads and are unaware that the breeding conditions for the animal may be deplorable. Due to lack of State oversight, there is no regulatory system which provides consumers with a credible assessment and trusted source of information. Also, research has shown that some pet stores mislead consumers about the type of facility where the animals are bred. A lawsuit was recently filed against Petland, that operates stores in Minnesota, citing numerous fraudulent acts against consumers. Consumers who purchase from ads in the paper rarely see where the animals are bred or housed; they meet the breeder at an off-site location, such as a parking lot, to pick up their new puppy/kitten. Consumers who purchase off the Internet never see the facilities ‚ the animal is often shipped via place to them. The majority of the large kennels are in rural areas, where no one can see or hear the animals, or may be housed in sheds or basements where citizens do not go.

Opposition states: “Breeding groups, such as the American Kennel Club, provide accountability within the pet industry by approving facilities that comply with industry standards.”
FACT: The American Kennel Club (AKC) is a dog registration authority. Their purpose is to collect money from individuals and mail them a piece of paper with the lineage of the dog, and collect money from breeders and send them registration papers. Its registration procedures for pedigree dogs are based on an honor system, which even the AKC has admitted does not work. As stated on their own website, the AKC does not guarantee the health or temperament of any dogs and "does not have penal or regulatory authority."

The AKC is not a state or federal agency and, therefore, does not have the authority to and does not enforce any laws.

Opposition states: "There are standards in effect specifically for dogs and cats [under Minnesota's] Best Management Standards of Care by Dealers, Commercial Breeders, and Brokers." And, "These regulations are enforced by local animal control officers and local law enforcement. Any violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor."
FACT: This is incorrect. The Best Management Standards (BMS) cannot be enforced because no State agency was granted the authority to enforce them. They are standards (an order; recommendations) compiled by the Department of Agriculture about ten years ago that would be “nice to follow” if you’re a breeder, but the breeder doesn’t have to comply. If the breeder wants to follow them, fine; if not, no problem.

Minnesota Federation of Field Trial Clubs, The Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America, and the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Alliance and responses

An email was submitted to members of the Agriculture Committees from one man who stated he represented the above organizations. He asked legislators to oppose regulation of the dog and cat breeding industry. This representative also spoke at some of the committee hearings. The information presented within the email/letter was inaccurate. Often these types of letters are not supported by fact or research but, instead, are emotionally-charged and full of misinformation.

NRA: National Rifle Association and responses

In past years, representatives from the NRA lobbied legislators in Minnesota to oppose any breeder regulation. The NRA has also been present in other states; and have launched lobbying efforts to oppose animal protection measures and laws. See below.