Dog Owners, Please read, Action needed NOW 5-7-09

[slimpickins]

BLAH......BLAH......BLAH....... Read the bill, if you are opposed to it, do something, if you are not, then don't.

If you choose to do nothing, don"t gripe when they come after you.

[dabutcher]

I'm going to lunch, will post again when i return, in the mean time you might want to read that again.. you are completely wrong on being 'required' to become a commercial breeder....

Sec. 802.151.  LICENSE REQUIRED; QUALIFICATIONS.  (a)  A person may not act, offer to act, or hold the person out as a commercial breeder in this state unless the person holds a commercial breeder license under this subchapter for each facility that the person owns or operates in this state.

it clearly states that a person may not ACT as a commercial breeder without license.... and above it clearly states in the definitions as to what constitutes a commercial breeder but i'll put it down for you here again.  (6)  "Commercial breeder" means a person who possesses 11 or more adult intact female animals and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return for consideration. 

so once again, if you own 11 intact females and have a litter of puppies and sell just one of those pups you would in fact be breaking the law.   i don't see where my reading comprehension skills have fallen to subpar standard.
  but maybe you could fill me in.

[Maver!ck]

Ok i'm back... and i see that people want to get ugly about this...
I'll state once again... The definitions you are posting in (6) refers to anyone that has 11 intact females and is APPLYING FOR A LICENSE.
you can have 11 intact females and you can NOT apply for a license and then you will not have to follow the rules for a 'licensed commercial breeder'
you CAN NOT apply for a license to become a commercial breeder if you DO NOT have at least 11 intact females.
you CAN NOT 'ACT' like a commercial breeder, nor can anyone hold you accountable as a commercial breeder if you do not have 11 intact females and have applied and been approved to become a licensed commercial breeder.

and if you own 11 intact females and have a litter of puppies and sell just just one of those pups??? how many pups did they have, how many are you talking about keeping, your arguement makes no sense... if you read the bill, the dog totals only apply to 'ADULT' dogs that are intact and able to breed... according to (1) which i assume you read FIRST... (1)  "Adult animal" means an animal six months of age or older.   
This has nothing to do with your puppies until they reach the breeding age and who having 11 intact females will keep 40 puppies to raise, which would put you in position for breaking a law... AND I REPEAT.. it would only be breaking the law if you WILLINGLY CHOSE TO APPLY FOR AND WERE APPROVED TO BECOME A LICENSED BREEDER.

Your reading skills are not subpar, your interpretation of the law is, or your inability to read in context?  i don't know which, but you are argueing a matter that you do not fully understand.  If I am wrong, i will apologize Publicly, which i hope that those who are wrong on this post will do... I will be contacting my good friend and rep today to confirm the correct interpretation of this bill and i'll post their response.

Maver!ck

PS - I have nothing against anyone on this board.  I have no problems with you personally dabutcher.  Anyone who stands for their rights should be commended.  I will be the first one to lock arms with you if an issue came up that would take away my hunting rights with dogs, etc... But we cannot let ignorance be an excuse for making a fool of ourselves in not supporting bills that are ethically right and not affecting us as dog hunters.  What they could modify to include all 11+ female owners in that commercial classification in the future is always a concern but, you can't decide against good for what bad MIGHT attack, you decide for good/stand for what's right, and fight bad if/when it does attack.

[Circle C]

I have read the bill twice now, and what I am taking from it is pretty much what Dabutcher posted. Looks to me that if you have 11 intact females AND are producing offspring intended for sale, then you are acting as a commercial breeder, hence the requirement for a license.  Now I may have that all wrong, but that is my interpretation.

Sec. 802.151.  LICENSE REQUIRED; QUALIFICATIONS.  (a)  A person may not act, offer to act, or hold the person out as a commercial breeder in this state unless the person holds a commercial breeder license under this subchapter for each facility that the person owns or operates in this state.

it clearly states that a person may not ACT as a commercial breeder without license.... and above it clearly states in the definitions as to what constitutes a commercial breeder but i'll put it down for you here again.  (6)  "Commercial breeder" means a person who possesses 11 or more adult intact female animals and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return for consideration.

Maverick,

I agree with this statement 100%. 

you can't decide against good for what bad MIGHT attack, you decide for good/stand for what's right, and fight bad if/when it does attack.

While I understand the "slippery slope" theory some have mentioned, I still think you have to pick your battles.  When I call my rep, I want it to have a positive impact. I do not want any association with puppy mills, and I feel like if I call to support a bill against them, then I am joining them.

[Maver!ck]

The preliminary response from Rep. Dan Flynn's office is that the 11+ females is only a requirement if you are attempted to carry the title of or applying for a licensed commercial breeder.  They, like I saw the bill the same way.  They were under the impression that this was only for those who would like to be commercial breeders.  They wanted to confirm what was not specifically stated and futhermore get the intentions of the author and contacted that office for their interpretation and intentions. 
I just got a call back and here is their response..

the bill is not specific intentionally, and the authors Intentions are not clear in the bill but it is for requiring anyone that has 11 blah blah  and uses any breedings to sell puppies blah blah to be required to apply for a license.

So as it stands, the interpretation is left to the judge or whoever is enforcing, but the intent is definitely against us as dog hunters/owners ( whom have 11+ intact females and sell puppies)

I would like to offer my apologies.

I will say that the person i conversed with at the office was very upset with this bill as well as it was misleading in it's intentions and not specific in 'forcing' those owners to apply.
It was also stated that there was some what of a large group of them that were not happy with it as well.
I did firmly state with them that with their response there would be a great force of people that would oppose this bill, including myself, if that was the intent.  They agreed completely and sounded as though they were on our side without hesitation.

Maver!ck

Call your reps, it does appear that some are listening

[slimpickins]

That's a "stand-up" guy right there, glad you got that cleared up for some of us.

[Maver!ck]

thanks slim,
as stated, ignorance is no excuse, if there are people to call to get answers, we need to call them and get answers so we have the truth...     I don't agree with puppy mills but like i told the person at Rep. Dan's office - unless they modify that portion of the bill we can not support it being left open for interpretation that jeopardizes our sport/past-time.
 
Again, let's unite and shoot it down.  Calling your State Rep does make a difference.  When you call, you can now have the knowledge that came directly from the author's office, his intent.  You can tell them you are voting against his intent, not the regulation of puppy mills but what/who they are trying to force into that classification.

Maver!ck

[Pecos21]

I spoke with Maverick by messenger as he was conversing with Rep. Dan Flynn's office. He then contacted me when he got the returned call.

I would also like to offer my apologies for my statements on here, as my interpretation was wrong as well.


 I wasn't trying to attack anyone personally, and I will be calling Mr. Flynn's office. I know him personally and Maverick does as well. And we will be expressing our feelings about this to him.

And I would like to Thank the TDHA personally for what they do.

[Txmason]

To All,
We want to stand together and make a differents.  All we can do is to try to inform the owners and hunters about what is going on.
HSUS has promised that in 10 years they don't want to see any more dogs or cats.  This year they have produced 41 bills in 26 stated to stop or limit dog ownership. 
We have to address every one as it comes up to keep them from getting a foot in.

the way each of us see some of these bill might be different but then a Law is passed it's much easier to lower # and add too that if the Bill never passed

Myself and TDHA just wants what is best for all dog owners and hunters.

Thanks to all that do support.

[Dexter]

 :-Xbtt

[dabutcher]

PS - I have nothing against anyone on this board.  I have no problems with you personally dabutcher.  Anyone who stands for their rights should be commended.  I will be the first one to lock arms with you if an issue came up that would take away my hunting rights with dogs, etc... But we cannot let ignorance be an excuse for making a fool of ourselves in not supporting bills that are ethically right and not affecting us as dog hunters.  What they could modify to include all 11+ female owners in that commercial classification in the future is always a concern but, you can't decide against good for what bad MIGHT attack, you decide for good/stand for what's right, and fight bad if/when it does attack.

hey i don't have any hard feelings.  and please don't take it as me trying to attack you as that wasn't my intention.  i'm just not as good with words as some people are.   

the worst thing about these laws is exactly what happened.  it's not what's in print, it's what's left to interpretation by the judge or the "department" that this bill was trying to form.    every law is written in this manner as it gives law enforment and judges "discresion" to interpret the law.  Now if someone like ourselves was to get in trouble and a judge ruled in our favor that would set future precedent for cases brought forward later down the road.  but i, myself, would just rather not have this packet of garbage on the books.

i can guarantee you that i would support any bill that was specifically worded that targeted only puppy mills.  everyone here loves dog or they wouldn't be spending all the money on care and food for them. 

and once again, i don't have any problem with you or anyone else here either.  i'm just not a wordsmith like some of the others here.  so i'd like to apologize as well if you took my replies as a personal attack as that wasn't my intentions.

[mley1]

Fella's lets keep this thread on track, and civil. The infighting needs to stop NOW. Otherwise this thread is on a fast track to being locked.

[Pecos21]

Texas Cur I wasn't calling you a fool......usually when someone says "we as dog hunters" that generally means all dog hunters not you as an individual........The only time you as Texas Cur were addressed was in  the first paragraph.......and I am not a fool sir.....If you (now I am addressing you) will read Maverick's reply.........even the State Rep's Assistant interpreted it the same way we did sir and she deals with bills and their verbage everyday...............she  had to call the author of the bill to get clarification...otherwise we still may not know the intent of the author. I will not call someone a name on a public thread......I would have sent you a pm and called you a name if I thought it was needed.....but name calling on here gets us nowhere sir...... I don't personally know you and therefore I have no reason to verbally attack you.   I was a Man about this and admitted I was wrong in my statement about the bill itself.  At least I took steps to get to the root of the situation....I talked to Maverick about it, he then called our State Rep. and we ALL got clarification.....Have a great day sir 

P.S.- I am not upset at Texas Cur or anyone else on here....this is a place for opinions, and just because I don't have the same opinion as the next person, doesn't mean I don't like them or could never get along with that person.....I would like to find one thread on here where EVERYONE agreed on one subject. I dare say there is  not one that exists.......

[dabutcher]

Fella's lets keep this thread on track, and civil. The infighting needs to stop NOW. Otherwise this thread is on a fast track to being locked.

appreciate it....  the man openly apologized and got everything straightened out from the source of the bill.

need to use the energy to make some phone calls and fax some letters to the above mentioned representatives on the committee and your district representatives as well.

[Texas_Cur]

he was talkin to me. I already removed it.  I was in the heat of the moment and got caught in a smart a$$ moment.

[dabutcher]

he was talkin to me. I already removed it.  I was in the heat of the moment and got caught in a smart a$$ moment.

i knew who he was referring to.... i was thanking him for steppin in and making sure it got back on track. 

[madshark]

I believe the critical words are, "...engaged in the business...".  That seems to mean that if you have more than 11 intact females and only breed an occassional litter (like you Mr. Mason and most others, here) you are not a commercial breeder under the definition.  I believe the state would have a hard time demonstrating a person was, "engaged in the business" who only bred a few litters per year.

I spent a lot of years reading and interpretting complex legal documents for government and private contracts.  The purpose of this bill seems to be to legitimately curtail the actions of unethical and abusive breeders.  We can lose political capital if we are not careful about our battles.  If we are seen to support the people who run these inhumane puppy production businesses we can lose some of the folks who would support us.

[Dexter]

 

[Clay]

The problem is madshark it leaves to much open for interpretation that is the way they get bs laws passed like alot of the gun laws that get passed through