Bill would tighten rules on breeding dogs

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

LINCOLN, Nebraska -- More than 20 people testified before the Agriculture Committee at the Nebraska Legislature Tuesday to let their voices be heard on a bill that would set stricter rules for commercial dog breeders in the state.

The bill, introduced by District 45 Sen. Abbie Cornett of Bellevue, proposes a number of new medical and well being requirements for dog breeders.

It would also create an option for dog breeders to earn an "outstanding" certification from the state Department of Agriculture and recognition on the department's website.

Proponents for LB427, like Mick Mines, lobbyist for the Nebraska Humane Society, argued that the bill would address dog breeding deficiencies. Those deficiencies include little mental stimulation, no exercise or limited interaction with humans, said Judy Varner, CEO of the Nebraska Humane Society.

The bill makes sense for Carol Wheeler, founder of Hearts United for Animals.

Wheeler, of Auburn, described sickly dogs with dental and skin disease that have come to her rescue dog shelter from breeders. Because of her experiences, Wheeler agreed that the provisions set forth in the bill are reasonable and warranted.

Varner, who helped draft the bill with Cornett and two dog breeders, called the bill "common sense" and "realistic."

But opponents of the bill, like Casey Schaaf, a full-time dog breeder from Atkinson, said the new requirements would put him out of business.

Schaaf, who runs a full-time breeding business with 200 adult dogs, said his operation has been inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the past 14 years.

Because some of the requirements in LB427 are more rigid than those set forth by the USDA, Schaaf said he would have to pay thousands of dollars making adjustments to his operation. Among those changes would include increasing space for his animals and implementing an exercise program that could cost $30,000 a year.

"That's when I have a problem," he said.

Other opponents, like Judy Williamson of Stamford, argued that more rules and regulations are not the answer to better dog breeding operations.

"Do you feel we need more regulations? We got a lot," she said. "It will literally destroy our business."

Cindy Johnson of Holdrege and Mark Christensen of Stanton agreed, adding that their businesses already are inspected several times a year. Christensen also said he already takes good care of his animals and legislation to require good care isn't necessary.

"I don't think that's the responsibility of anyone but me and a dog owner," he said.

Many opponents argued that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) encouraged the legislation, which Varner fervently denied. Some Nebraska organizations have criticized the HSUS for its positions on confinement livestock operations.

"HSUS has had nothing to do with this bill," she said.

Under the bill, the new requirements would include:

Each dog should have a primary living space based on a formula determined by the size of the dog. Also, all flooring in a dog's primary living space should be a solid surface so it can be disinfected.

A female dog cannot be bred more than once every year and half unless a licensed veterinarian has seen her.

Dogs must have a health and welfare examination every 60 days.

All dogs should have mental stimulation that is not related to their daily care.

All surgeries, with the exception of tail docking and dew claw removal, must be performed by a licensed veterinarian.

Dogs must be implanted with a microchip for tracking purposes.

Comments
View 6 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • What a great idea mental stimulation and actual exercise for the dogs. I have worked with and seen puppy mill dogs and no animal should have to live like that. I fully support this legislation and hope people will do so as well.

    -- Posted by Chaco1 on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 4:30 PM
  • This story is not giving accurate information. For example a medical exam is only required EVERY THREE YEARS. Every sixty days, the breeders are required to examine the animal themselves and keep a record showing that they looked at the animal and that the animal appeared healthy.

    Secondly, if a breeder cannot provide exercise for the dogs that make them a living, they should be out of business.

    -- Posted by trippichic on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 10:37 PM
  • A lot of what this bill is trying to cover appears to be common sense and should already be seen upon inspection. "Puppy mills" should be shut down and breeders shouldn't be burdened with more rules, regulations & financial hardship because of them. Mere pet owners sometimes don't even follow good pet care. What "rules" are they going to come up with for that?

    -- Posted by crysd913 on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 8:40 AM
  • "Do you feel we need more regulations? We got a lot," she said. "It will literally destroy our business."

    BOO HOO. Find another line of work instead of putting inbred, diseased, malnourished, attitude adjusted animals out on the streets. Stop filling up our shelters!

    -- Posted by FNLYHOME on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 10:14 AM
  • wow chaco, you going to let the government step in and tell people how to run their business? Seems odd coming from you.

    -- Posted by president obama on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 12:34 PM
  • This bill changes the definition of a commercial breeder and now makes someone a commercial breeder for just owning intact animals, not even having to breed any litters. It does step on religious convictions with the microchipping, as some religious beliefs do not hold with implanting things in their animals body. And it calls for unreasonable searches in private homes.

    The equivilant of this bill is like saying that if you own a blowdryer and curling iron that you are a commercial beautician, because you could do someone's hair, not because you are a business.

    There are a number of other changes in the law with this bill that would make raising rabbits for meat(and possibly many other animals) illegal, since it requires a vet to euthanize all animals, with no provisions for anyone else to do so.

    The bill says it regulates dog and cat breeders, but it lists in the bill other species of companion animals including but not limited to a number of species. This is open ended and could be used to attach the same rules to any species, including livestock. It could seriously impact the livestock industry in the state.

    This bill also tries to make all dogs have the same needs for housing and space and they do not.

    There are no exceptions in the housing requirements for indoor climate controlled housing for working dogs who must be acclimated to the outdoors to be able to safely work at what ever temperatures we come across in the state.

    Its a nice idea to improve the life of dogs in breeding kennels, but this particular bill is very poorly worded and contradicts itself in several places.

    -- Posted by lovedogs on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 9:52 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: