legislation

Dog/Cat Breeder Bill

follow the vote

talking points

opposition

how bill becomes law

governance

animal law

minnesota laws

animal welfare act

local government

other states

federal laws

 		 

legislation > opposition

 

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 and others about the problem, what needs to be done, and why.

Below are examples of inaccurate statements about the issue and about S.F. 7/ H.F. 253. (S.F. 7/ H.F. 253 is the bill introduced in the 2009-2010 Minnesota Legislative session to regulate dog/cat breeders; it did not pass.)

We've provided factual responses to opposing statements below.

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

 

OPPOSITION TALKING POINTS

We will be adding additional copy to this page. Please check back.

"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

 

 

SPORTSMEN'S AND ANIMAL OWNER'S VOTING ALLIANCE and responses

Below are statements made by the "Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance" (SAOVA) — with factual responses. Based in North Carolina, this group opposes S.F.7/H.F.253. They submitted these false statements (minus the accurate facts) to Minnesota legislators and encouraged their members to do so as well.

 

SAOVA states: S.F. 7/ H.F. 253 is "unnecessary because current Minnesota law already addresses animal cruelty, care and housing in animal facilities."

FACT: Currently, Minnesota has no State laws to regulate the dog and cat breeding industry. S.F. 7/H.F. 253 (not yet passed) is a regulatory bill which works with existing animal cruelty statutes. Regulation of the dog and cat breeding industry 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. Minnesota's current system for animal protection (or lack of) is not working, which is why regulation of this industry is being sought. Today, law enforcement can only investigate an inhumane 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 states: S.F. 7/ H.F. 253 "limits ownership of personal property (dogs/cats) a violation of property rights."

FACT: S.F. 7/ H.F. 253 does not limit ownership; no where in the amended bill is ownership restricted.

 

SAOVA states: S.F. 7/ H.F. 253 "allows funds to be donated by private parties to help develop a commercial breeder regulation and inspection program, including delegating inspections to private organizations who could implement their own agendas."

FACT: S.F. 7/ H.F. 253 states: "The Board of Animal Health may accept donations and contributions from private parties for the development and administration of the licensing program." This clause was added to the bill in order to assist the Board of Animal Health with start-up costs for the licensing program. The Board is a state agency that will professionally manage any funds received. The bill does not delegate inspections to private organizations.

 

SAOVA states: "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 states: "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: Hobby breeders, by definition, are exempt from regulation under S.F. 7/ H.F. 253. 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. S.F. 7/ H.F. 253 includes a sliding fee scale for licensing fees (based on number of animals). As with other industries, this fee is a cost of doing business. The Minnesota Board of Animal Health will set the fee.

 

SAOVA states: "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). As far as inspecting a person's home — if a breeder has 20+ breeding dogs/cats (and unlimited puppies/kittens) in their home, there should be some oversight. Local authorities welcome the assistance. Someone with 19 adult breeding dogs/cats (and litters) is exempt under H.F. 253. (S.F. 7, as laid on the table in the Senate Agriculture Committee, contains the original language for licensing.)

 

SAOVA states: S.F. 7/ H.F. 253 "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 inspected by the Board.

 

SAOVA states: S.F. 7/ H.F. 253 "duplicated provisions of the federal Animal Welfare Act and the licensing provisions of the United States Department of Agriculture, making the bills unnecessary."

FACT: Only dog and cat breeders who sell wholesale (e.g. to pet shops) are required to be licensed by the USDA under the Animal Welfare Act. Breeders who sell directly to the public (through websites, classified ads, parking lots or other means) are not required to be licensed or regulated. Thus, some USDA-licensed breeders are now choosing to drop their USDA license and sell directly to the public because Minnesota has no State oversight. Minnesota does not have the authority to enforce federal USDA regulations.

To view additional comments, go to Contrasting Beliefs.

 

MISCELLANEOUS POINTS OF OPPOSITION and Responses

Many legislators in Minnesota support animal and consumer protection measures and support S.F. 7/ H.F. 253. Some legislators are undecided and need to be educated further. Other legislators are opposed to the bill and do not support any regulation of any sort.

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. Please feel free to use this copy in your conversations with legislators.


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-million 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 pet stores (many of whom sell puppies/kittens from puppy mills) lie to consumers about where the animals come from. 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. And, many breeders claim that they don’t want the public on their facility because the public carries disease. Consumers who purchase off the Internet never see the facilities. The majority of the large kennels are in rural areas, blocks away from any main road, where no one can see or hear the animals. (Some dogs are also de-barked, surgically or by ramming rods down their throats.) Many animals are also in sheds or basements where citizens do not go. Only reputable breeders allow people on their facilities.

 

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. Since Minnesota has no State laws or regulations to inspect these facilities, there is no system in place to enforce existing 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 they are not law and no State agency has been 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.

  • There is no enforcement of Best Management Standards
  • There are no penalties associated with Best Management Standards
  • No agency has been granted authority to enforce these standards

S.F.7/H.F. 253 is a regulatory bill. It grants the Board of Animal Health the authority to license dog and cat breeders, inspect facilities and enforce standards. It gives the Board, law enforcement and the courts the tools they need to act within the system of law. To read more about this, go to Best Management Standards (located mid-page on this link).

 

Opposition states: “We must be cautious of expanding government regulations that are too limiting and unnecessarily burden responsible pet owners and breeders with excessive fees and processes.”
FACT: S.F. 7/H.F. 253 includes a sliding fee scale which would allow the Board of Animal Health to set fees based on the size of a facility. The recommended fee amount, as indicated by an early fiscal note, is equivalent to the profit from the sale of 1, at most 2, dogs. Two other points regarding money:

  • Consumers are defrauded due to being sold unhealthy pets                                  Many consumers unknowingly purchase an unhealthy puppy or kitten and then incur high veterinarians costs to make the animal well. While some consumers use the Pet Lemon Law to get their money back, most don’t pursue this option. Most people bond with their pet immediately and do not or will not “exchange it” for another, which would mean death for the animal.
  • Citizens are defrauded due to taxes not paid for sale of products
    The State is potentially losing millions of tax dollars because of breeders who purposely don’t register as a Minnesota business and, thus, avoid paying taxes to the State on animals they sell. (An average price for a dog is $250 - $1,500 each.) Even nonprofit humane societies and animals rescue groups must pay taxes on the animals they adopt out. Until breeders are regulated, the State will never know how much money it is losing.

NOTE: The State of Indiana is also trying to pass dog/cat regulation. It's estimated that dog breeding is a $1 billion industry in Indiana. It's also estimated that there are 3,000 breeders in Indiana. Rep. Jackie Walorski (Indiana legislator), after visiting kennels across the state, estimated that "at least 60 percent of commercial breeeders do not pay any taxes," which represents "$150 million to $250 million in annual, untapped revenue for the state."

 

Opposition states: “The bill proposes to provide certain standards of care for dog and cat breeders.”

FACT: This bill requires that breeders comply with existing laws. The bill also exempts hobby breeders – which includes the smaller breeders and those people who breed dogs and cats for show, agility, mushing, etc. Good breeders should already be complying with existing animal cruelty laws. This year, many small breeders and large breeders support the bill.

 

Opposition states: The bill includes “authorization for local government to govern facilities licensed in their area.”

FACT: The first engrossment of H.F. 253 does not give local units of government licensing authority. And, an author’s amendment was offered and adopted in the House Agriculture Policy Committee before the bill was laid on the table that also removed local units of government from inspecting facilities.

 

Opposition states: “Any commercial animal facility is required to comply with Minnesota’s “Pet and Companion Animal Welfare Act” outlines in Minnesota Statutes 346.35 to 346.44. These provisions apply to veterinarians, animal boarding facilities, and commercial animal facilities.” And, “These regulations are enforced by local animal control officers and local law enforcement.”

FACT: This is incorrect. 

  • Minnesota Statutes Sections 346.35-44 covers veterinarians, animal boarding facilities and commercial animal facilities – not breeding facilities.
  • The Board of Animal Health inspects the facilities covered under 346 (not local animal control officers or local law enforcement).
  • The Board has confirmed in committee hearings, in meetings, and on their web site that they do not inspect breeding facilities. Breeders are not covered under Minnesota law.
  • The “commercial animal facilities” defined in 346 are, for example, humane societies and animal impound facilities where stray dogs and cats are impounded – not breeding animals.

Opposition states: “...the intent of this legislation is already addressed sufficiently under current law. The Federal Animal Welfare Act and licensing provisions of the United States Department of Agriculture and Minnesota state laws already address cases of animal cruelty and should be sufficient to address any problems of neglect or abuse of animals in commercial breeding facilities. The law provides basic animal care requirements for these facilities.”

FACT: This is incorrect.

  • Minnesota does not have the authority to enforce USDA regulations.  The USDA is a regulatory agency – not an enforcement agency. They have never charged a breeder in MN with animal cruelty or neglect because they do not enforce anti-cruelty laws.
  • The recent trial of Kathy Jo Bauck in Otter Tail County and the verdict in this case clearly illustrates how poorly USDA-licensed facilities are inspected (if at all) by the federal government. Bauck is a USDA-licensed dog breeder who has been in businesses for over 20 years. Bauck was originally charged (by the State of Minnesota) with five counts of animal cruelty, two counts of torture and two counts of practicing veterinary medicine without a license. She was found guilty of four misdemeanor charges (three counts of torture and one count of animal cruelty). Bauck, too, had been on probation since October 2006 for practicing veterinary medicine without a license. Even with this verdict, probation, repeated investigations, and numerous citizen complaints (spanning years), this breeder still operates her kennels today, having transferred ownership to her husband and daughter. Bauck is only one example of one bad breeder in Minnesota.
  • In regards to the Animal Welfare Act, it only licenses breeders who sell wholesale (e.g., to pet shops). Any breeder who sells directly to the public (i.e. through websites, parking lots, classified ads, etc.) is not required to be USDA licensed. Some breeders in Minnesota have deliberately dropped their USDA licenses so they are now completely unregulated and don’t have to be inspected.
  • See other responses regarding existing State laws.

Opposition states: “In my opinion the focus should be on enforcement of what is already covered under Federal and State law.”

FACT: This is not an issue of enforcement because regulatory law (clearly defining who gets enforced, by whom, for what and with what penalties) does not exist. Humane agents and law enforcement are asking for regulation because, as with other industries, regulation of the dog and cat breeding industry helps them execute their job properly. Also, good breeders support regulation because they are already complying with existing law; these good breeders understand they would have more business because the bad, inhumane breeders could not operate until they were in compliance, which can only be assured by requiring licensing and inspections. 

 

A false assumption has been made by some legislators that all breeders are good and that this industry can do no harm; therefore, no regulation is needed. Others choose to frame the argument as animals versus humans, where only people are worthy of protection.

Our state is known for inhumane dog and cat breeding and yet legislators, by their lack of action, are allowing it to continue. There are over 28 states that already regulate the breeding industry with many states addressing the issue in their legislatures this year.

This issue goes to the core of what makes us human — and what makes us Minnesotans. The inhumane treatment of animals for profit is about cruelty. Allowing these actions to continue speaks to our values and beliefs.

Please educate legislators and urge them to support S.F. 7/ H.F. 253.

To view additional comments, go to Contrasting Beliefs.

 

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 (S.F. 7/ H.F. 253). 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

Representatives from the NRA lobbied legislators in Minnesota to oppose S.F. 7/ H.F. 253 and also attended hearings regarding this bill. The NRA has also been present in other states (that are trying to regulate the dog and cat breeding industry and help prevent inhumane breeding); and have launched lobbying efforts to oppose animal protection measures and laws. See below.

More articles about the NRA's involvement and responses will be posted here soon.

 

  

©2009 Animal Folks Minnesota - Home - Contact    

 

 

 

"));