Consumer protection is advantageous but we're not discussing toasters, cars or an outfit from Macy's. This is about living beings. Apples and oranges to say the least.

I hate to see anything that makes buying (vs. adopting)a pet more attractive. On the other hand, this would make selling animals more difficult and could help discourage the practice.

I imagine that that the AKC and various pet industry lobbyists will be all over this proposed legislation and that it will soon be just a memory.

I can see several dangers in this legislation. I agree with stelly1 that anything to make buying vs adopting more attractive isn't something I'd like to see. However, I also agree that anything to make the selling animals more difficult and discouraging the practice would be a good thing.

Would veterinarians be hesitant to put their findings in writing if they think they could end up having to testify in court?

This also could mean people might more easily trade in a "defective" kitten or puppy as opposed to getting it the care it needs. I know it happens now, but I cannot fathom trading in a sick critter to an unknown fate.

If shelters were included under this umbrella, there would appear to be problems adopting critters with unknown history.

I'm sure the individual that is sponsoring this legislation has his/her heart in the right place, but there should be a great deal of thought behind it to avoid unintended consequences.

I also agree with stelly1 that this bill will die in committee.

Breeders are creating a "product" and should do so responsibly. If they do not do a good job they should be held accountable. Pet Shops know the origin of the "product" they sell and could easily write in their contract that the breeder uphold the "warranty" in case of a "manufacturing" fault.
Few buyers are going to turn in their puppy or kitten, but should be compensated for at least the cost of purchase if things go wrong.
I question how contagious diseases would be addressed. Most puppies and kittens are sold before they have their full series of vaccinations. Who would be responsible for parvo, distemper, etc?
Shelteres and rescues seldom have information about the origin of the animals they recieve. And, for the most part, invest a great deal more in their animals than there breeders did.

Perhaps this legislation would make 'sellers' pay more attention to what they are 'selling'. Almost everything you purchase has a warranty. Now I don't consider my pets the same as a chair, I love them dearly. And, I don't suppose that many people would return a pet if ailments could be fixed, but purchasing a pet and having it die because of where it came from needs to be compensated, and the 'where it came from' needs to be held to selling healthy animals. Rescue organizations usually are very concerned with the health of those it rescues, so shouldn't be dumped in with puppy mill types.

I have to agree with both stelly1 and TheOldBroad on this...

First off, how on earth would you offer a warranty on a pet? Would the warranty cover inherent diseases (those likely to pertain to a specific breed)? Or, would the warranty cover ALL diseases? How long of a warranty should it be? Hip dysplasia can sometimes not be apparent for years, same goes for other ailments. You know darned well that a person isn't going to want to give up their dog for "replacement" once it's become a part of the family. A refund probably wouldn't cover all of the veterinary expenses that the pet owner is going to incur over the lifetime of an infirm/affected pet. Hardly fair, either.

But, let's say the pet IS returned to the breeder for a replacement/refund? Then what? What will the breeder do with the pup/kitten? We all know that the most likely "solution" for the breeder is to euthanize. Is that fair to the animals they breed? If they instead turn the ailing pets over to a shelter/rescue, is that fair to them? They'd be hard-pressed to find homes for pets with medical conditions, as adopters will probably not want to knowingly take on the expense. So the pets would still likely wind up euthanized, all due to the ignorance/irresponsibility of a bad breeder.

If we're going to do something about this, then imposing stricter control over breeding practices seems the best solution. How one would enforce that control is the issue. With puppy mills, backyard and hobby breeders dotting the countrysides in many states, how would we ensure that they are breeding responsibly? It would be impossible.

Our best bet is to continue to educate the public about bad breeders and puppy mills, and to encourage adoptions from reputable shelters and rescues. Maybe breeders who agree to allow some as-yet-to-be-created organization to monitor their breeding programs could be given some type of certification? Just a USDA stamp of approval doesn't cut it, in my opinion. They mostly check for hygienic conditions, not proper breeding practices. I don't know that they care whether breeders have their animals tested for medical conditions that will affect their progeny.

Sorry for the length of this missive. This is a pet peeve of mine, as I have two puppy mill rescues. Both had demodectic mange within a week or two of my having adopted them. One of them has since developed Addison's disease, and requires monthly shots and regular doses of Prednisone. I adopted them not knowing what type of medical conditions they might eventually develop, but I was pretty sure it would be something, given the fact that they both came from puppy mills. Not every person realizes this.

I hope that someday we'll get a handle on what to do about poor breeding practices, but until then, we can only keep pounding the message in: Don't buy animals from breeders unless you've done your homework; always expect that your pet will require veterinary attention at some point; and be prepared to take on the expense and the care of your pet.

"Amirek said" Our best bet is to continue to educate the public about bad breeders and puppy mills, and to encourage adoptions from reputable shelters and rescues.

Don't forget that we should also be teaching the public about what reputable breeders are and the benefits that can be gained from one, for those who want a purebred dog.

There are always going to be people who want a purebred dog. We should not neglect those people, else they may become the very ones who may make the mistake of buying from a pet store.


Also, Believe it or not people in the dog breeding world keep an eye on each other better than any organization ever could. Breeders know if your a good breeder and honest person because guess where they get their dogs? - yep other breeders. If your looking for a good breeder, all you have to do is ask around.

I agree with this. People within a given fancy don't just want "the look", etc. They want healthy stock, even if they are not intending to breed themselves.

...And of course if you are a breeder within the fancy who is there because you love the breed, you are going to want to continue to breed healthy animals, because you are proud of your chosen breed.

Not all breeders are bad.

I have certain breeds that I love myself, though I am not a breeder and would be more likely to adopt from a breed-specific rescue.

(I was raised with boxers.)

Although I disagree with the sentiment, pets are considered property under the law. i.e. - if you lose a beloved pet due to someone's negligence, you cannot sue for pain and suffering, just the cost of the animal and vet bills. I believe this legislation will force puppy mills, brokers and pet stores to work harder to keep the animals healthy. As far as rescues/shelters, they are NOT in it for the profit! While a reputable rescue will quarantine a dog/cat coming from a shelter (especially Miami-Dade!), test cats for contagious diseases, test (and treat) for heartworms and get a vet exam, we have no way of detecting congenital problems (though we have just depleted our coffers paying for surgery for 2 Yorkies that had liver shunts!)

About time somebody held these people up to acceptable standards and put a block in their way to treat animals in such a inhumane way

Responsible breeders already do this. My contracts with my breeders allow me to return for nearly ANY reason. But they also prohibit me, under financial penalty, from abandoning my dogs, or turning them in to a shelter, or even reselling them. I bought 'em, I care for them.

And AKC should be all over this - in support - since AKC already encourages this kind of behavior among breeders.

Having bred dogs for 10 years on an extremely small scale, I think I can add some information that most of you don't know.

Pet stores rarely know the backgrounds of the dogs they sell. They are mass-produced by the Hunt Corporation and shipped via semi (some dieing along the way) to pet stores. The Hunt Corporation is probably the largest puppy mill in the world!

In reality, AKC cares nothing about this. They care ONLY about money. They create the image of caring, but do nothing about these things. That's why they got in bed with Petland until Responsible breeders raised all kinds of Hell.

There are health issues in animals for which there is no test, so breeders are at risk for these things they have no way of preventing. Those things are usually excluded from the warranty.

A Responsible breeder is one who insists in their contract that they have some control over the puppy/dog should the new owner find themselves unable to care for it. We do this to ensure that the puppy/dog does not end up in a shelter or any worse fate. We also take great care in finding families looking for a "family member" in a pet AND who have researched breeds, so they know what they are getting into. Many dogs in shelters are the result of very poor decisions by consumers. We try to make sure they make an educated decision.

This politician is attempting to win the hearts of voters. PERIOD. This cannot be "enforced." Think about it. Laws create lawsuits OR they require public officials to enforce and prosecute. Since this is not proposing a criminal offense, it would not be enforced and prosecuted, but merely cost the consumer even more money that would go into the pocket of some lawyer. If it were a criminal offense, do you think the law enforcement departments in Michigan have the time to devote to investigating a single purchase transaction? I doubt it would ever be effective for the consumer, but it sure will win votes for that politician!

Put the Hunt Corporation out of business, and "over-population" will probably be non-existent.

We already have a pet lemon law in place in MN (http://www.bah.state.mn.us/animals/dogs-cats/files/pet-lemon-law-806.pdf). I've only had to guide pet owners to it a couple of times but it's been great to have it when they've needed it. Both owners elected to keep their pets and to have the breeder reimburse them the full cost of the pets to put towards vet bills.

The proposed legislation is like Florida's law-it is touted as a consumer protection law, but does more to protect pet stores and the puppy mills that supply pet stores with their never ending stream of inbred sickly "merchandise." In Florida the law is not even enforced, so if a pet store refuses to give the statutorily required refund, the consumer's only recourse is a law suit. The law is hardly an incentive to ensure healthy well bred puppies since the store's liability is limited to the purchase price.

Warranties already exist for both the buyers who purchase through reputable breeders, and many rescues. This law would require the not so good & back yard breeders, and pet shops to provide the same. I think this law would skip over reputable breeders as many of them have records to show that they are not making a profit and don't plan to.

Reputable breeders will almost always provide in writing via a sale contract, a health warranty usually,14 - 30 days, for contagious disease. And will include other clauses for hereditary disease and even temperament. With full or partial money back, or another puppy if your willing to wait. Often there are also other clauses that prohibit you from ever turning your dog into the animal shelter. My own breeder will take my dog back at any time throughout his life, even if I just don't want him, or can't keep him - though because I am past the 60 day window, I won't get any money back, but I love this part of my warranty, because I always know that should the unforeseen happen, my dog will always have a home.

I have also seen a few rescues and shelters provide warranties for contagious disease and some even provide a clause usually for up to 60 - 90 days for other preexisting health conditions, that were not disclosed, such as the existence of heart worms. They too will also prohibit the dog from being dumped at an animal shelter and will take the dog back at any time, for any reason.

how do you determine if a breeder "works for profit"? I would love to actually make some money when i breed a litter.. do i? sometimes yes, most times no.. if I live in Michigan will I have to show tax returns to show I do not breed "for profit" and if I make a few hundred dollars will i be counted under this bill.. Why aren't rescues /shelters a part of this bill ..many large rescues ( check our North Shore Animal League )hold MILLIONS of dollars under 501 (c) 3's . They hold events, sell dogs, and have a large vet staff.. sort of like other "for profits" only they get their "merchandise" for FREE..tell me they are not in it "for profit" they have a huge paid staff. and a multi million dollar facility..
If you read the bill further there is a clause about a 90 day window.. so if I buy a car.. take it out an wreck it or pour sand in the gas tank.. do i get to take it back and get a full refund? Who knows what people do when they get a pet home? what they feed it.where they take it. if they keep up on shots,, if they injure the puppy and cause it to have an injury that mimics a congenital disease? Vets should be dead set against this.. it puts them right in the middle of what could be an undefinable situation.. they will spend more time on the witness stand than in their offices..

I have news for you: Non-profit means just that. From what I understand, the rules for being a non-profit are very stringent. Any monies raised must go back into the organization, as opposed to into the pockets of stakeholders, as is the case in for-profit businesses.

Their "millions" probably go into animal care, operating costs, advertising, and wages for their paid imployees.

We do not need or want more Goverment control, they will tell us who can have a Pet and who can not. Some places it is already happening. People Who have Puppie Mills can be found out easy, Lets use our Head, not our hearts, that has got me in a mess, more times then I'll talk about. We take-in-old Dogs, Which I love, People are losing their Homes are going into Nursing Homes.....What Kills me, when some get on their feet, they go get a puppy. Do not want the old Pet Kid, back, mades me wonder if they will treat their Parents, like that, dump and go. Well I'm happy they are with me, no way, will I ever Dump and GO.

It seems to me like many of the other comments are taking an issue with breeders in general (be that right or wrong), however... responsible breeders are already doing these things. The issue is that the "breeders" that generally sell to pet stores (like Petland or other big name places especially) are not responsible breeders to begin with! My issue is, if I have owned a puppy for a month unless said puppy is the spawn of satan I am probably not going to want to "trade it in" for a different dog.

As far as vets go, my only concern would be that some people may see this as a way to have issues that they have caused paid for. If you take an 8 week old puppy to the dog park, pet stores, etc. there is no safe way of determining if the pet had a contagious disease before or after such ventures. Is there really a way to safeguard from such seedy people? Also, as another example some trainers (pushy ones usually) want puppies in their puppy classes ASAP...so who would be to blame if an owner enrolls in puppy class before vaccinations have been received and 1.) gives all the other puppies something communicable their puppy had from the pet store or 2.) picks up something in the pet store. How would a situation such as option 2 be handled? What about option 1?

Other than a few clarifications, I think everywhere needs to look into bill like this...not just for the would-be owners, but most especially for the pets that are being sold.

I just thought of one more thing, if the owner of a sick puppy (who was sick because of/from the store) elects to have their vet bills paid, and not trade in the pet....how does that work on both the vet's and the store's end? I would assume, the owner would still need to foot the bill unless previously approved by either side, and then potentially the owner would be reimbursed? It doesnt seem fair to make the vet wait for payment from the store for services they have already provided, but it also seems unfair to make the owner pay the bill when the store will ultimately be doing so. Would it only be certain vets that would allowed to make such decisions...because I wouldnt want a vet that the pet store selected (for whatever reason) to be the one calling the shots on my pet if I had a vet I already worked with.

Who in their Right mind, Buys from at Pet Store, unless it's from Pet-Mart, these are from NO-KILL-SHELLER !! If you must have AKC....Talk to you Vet....They know who is not a Puppy Mill, They know the Pups, if they do not of any-one with that Breed, Call other Vets. check out AKC Pups in the paper, go to their home OR Kennels,like I tell my Sons..STOP-LOOK-LISTEN.

Hmmm I have to agree with Stelly and OldBroad. There's pros and cons to this legislation. Personally, I want to see puppy mills out of business. Next weekend I will have the opportunity to meet THE Bill Smith--who appeared on Oprah and exposed horrors of Puppy Mills to masses. He's trying to enact such legislation to end it. Something shocking I learned--it's mostly the Amish running these puppy mills. Hence I have stopped buying their goods. I'm looking forward to my trip and networking with 700 guests at his annual fundraiser! I'll be sharing, listening and absorbing!

"it's mostly the Amish running these puppy mills. Hence I have stopped buying their goods."

And have you stopped eating Italian because of Italians began the Mafia? or ceased doing business with anyone who is Jewish because of the way they treat Arabs or Arabs because of how they treat Jews? or whites because of their history with Indians, blacks, etc.? Every group has people who do less than savory deeds. That does NOT mean that ALL of that group are bad and to be avoided.

I am not saying there are no Amish puppy mills. I am saying that not all Amish should be treated with disdain because some are any more than one should avoid all things English because of how the Irish have been treated - or thought to have been treated.

Unfortunately, there are many puppy mills who are not Amish owned. In my neck of the woods (Oklahoma), a favorite is to get individuals to breed their dogs and sell them to 'the organization' which sells to pet stores.

legislating this after the fact isn't going to help. There will be he said she said arguments and the dogs are going to suffer. Straight up return the dog and the dog is going to suffer (or die)

Breeders who breed like this won't care enough even with any new laws to take care of the animals. They are money making things that bark to them.

Until you find a way to legislate the front end of this and make it unprofitable for them then this will continue to happen.

How about requiring any dog that gives birth to be seen by a vet twice. and all the puppies need to have their vaccines or be given a waver from a vet. and they can't use the same vet continually or you need a second opinion... etc. Stuff "reputable" breeders do now so it won't impact them quite so much

Pipe dreams. You can't legislate human behavior.

As long as a substantial percentage of the public remain clueless as to how to find a puppy and what they should evaluate and check out, this problem will continue and no amount of legislation is going to do anything to ease the problem. As with so many 'punishment' types of laws, those often hurt are not the actual violators. Many of the 'good breeders' are the ones who are being penalized and, in some cases, forced to either move, quit breeding or skirt the law.

Sadly,we have become a society who seems to believe all ills can be solved with a law. Sadly, passing laws has made many feel the problem(s) have been addressed and the individual no longer has to be involved or the law is the only action required. Most laws like this are laws in name only. Little or no funding is provided for enforcement. The people who buy are none the wiser and remain a ready market.

I'm reading this with some amusement, as I am a reputable breeder of AKC-registered dogs. When I breed a litter, I am breeding for my next show dog, but as I will keep only one or two dogs to work in the ring, the rest of the puppies go into pet homes.

A lot of people commenting on this thread may think that my contract is very limited in consumer protection. Bear with me and read all the way through, please.

My contract guarantees that the puppy is in good health on the date of purchase, and states the date of the puppy's "go home" veterinary examination (typically within about 1-3 days prior to placement). Buyers are required to take the puppy to a vet of their choice for examination within 5 days of purchase, and any health warranty is void if they do not do this. Within that 5 day window, they may return the puppy to me for a full refund. After that, no guarantee is given "except in the case of a hereditary or congenital defect which develops to the extent it renders “puppy” unsuitable as a pet. The condition and its effect must be attested to by the buyer's veterinarian, and by a veterinarian specified by me in their community (I am responsible for the cost of the 2nd opinion). In this instance, a replacement pet will be given when one becomes available.

I thought very long and hard about the limitations of this contract. This was my thinking:

- Some very serious contagious diseases, including Parvo, have incubation periods as short as 5 days. I cannot imagine giving a 30 day warranty on communicable diseases, when I do not control where the puppy is taken and what they are exposed to during that time. Even fully vaccinated, puppies can and do contract Parvo, because no vaccine is 100%, particularly in puppies up to 18 weeks, who cannot maintain a complete immune response for more than about 3 weeks. This is why multiple vaccinations are given.

- There are plenty of heritable and congenital defects that do little to affect the dog's quality of life. For example, an overbite or underbite is, in fact, a congenital defect in my breed. Its presence is one reason I might choose not to show a dog, but it won't affect the dog as a pet one whit. I am not willing to pay upwards of $500 to have this "defect" diagnosed and surgically corrected when it is purely cosmetic. As another example, the puppy may be cryptorchid (a testicle, or both, retained). The only effect will be that the neuter surgery will be more expensive. Typically by the age at which I place puppies (about 12-16 weeks), I know who is cryptorchid, and I arrange to make a payment to cover the additional neuter cost directly to the buyer's veterinarian.

Other conditions represent a combination of perhaps a congenital/heritable condition and environmental or dietary practices that can aggravate that condition. At a good weight, or with good diet, a dog may not be bothered at all, but too heavy, or with a poor exercise or poor diet, some bone and skin conditions might be greatly aggravated.

To try to specify each of these in a contract is complicated beyond belief.

So....I talk with my puppy buyers, I explain what conditions are most prevalent in my breed, I talk about what conditions have been noted in which dogs in the five generation pedigree they have for their puppy. If I don't know, I go looking for the information they need. For example, I was asked by a puppy buyer from my last litter what history of cancer was in bloodlines. Well, as dogs live longer, cancer after about age 10 or 11 becomes more common, as it does in older persons. However, his concern arose because he had had two dogs who developed cancer before age 6. So I talked with my mentors, who have the bloodlines going back from my dogs, and we identified the single dog with cancer onset before age 10 in the pedigree, and I reported this to him so that he could make a decision. And yes, these mentors do track the dogs they have sold and how long they live and what they died of, as do I.

Bottom line, the only real guarantee I offer is for the pet's initial healthy state at go-home. Puppies are living beings, and living beings cannot be "guaranteed" because we don't control everything that happens in their lives and their cellular development - any more than we do with children.

All that said, this afternoon I'm listening to an 18 month old that I bred nap quietly next to me. She's here recuperating from surgery on a leg that developed a malformation. I paid about $2,000 for the surgery, and because of the living situation of her owners, have split her post-op care with members of their family. She will spend at least 4 1/2 of the 8 weeks of her recuperation with me. In her case, there are four possible contributors to the leg malformation: congenital, weight, too many stairs too young, and spay at too early an age. The vets cannot tell us what happened. But here she is, needing care to have good quality of life. While I paid for the surgery, her owners had initial diagnostic costs and will have ongoing costs for supplements.

Under the law proposed in Michigan, they could have returned her to me, and I would have treated her and then found a new home for her (notice that euthanasia is not appearing here as an option). And they could wait for a replacement, likely to be at least 1-2 years out until my next litter. Or they could have asked for reimbursement to her cost, which would have covered less than 1/3 of the cost of the surgery. Instead, I paid for the surgery fully and am happy to have the opportunity to visit with her during her recuperation period. The owners are great owners, the dog is a wonderful and happy dog, and I wanted to make it possible for her to be treated earlier rather than later, when the surgery might be less successful.

None of this was specified in my sales contract. It was covered in a conversation I had with the buyers, in which I said "if something goes wrong with a puppy I sell, I work with the puppy owners to make sure that together, we get the puppy what they need". That's a statement I make because by the time I send the puppy home, I know the family well enough to feel comfortable making that commitment - or a puppy doesn't go home with them.

In my work in rescue over the past 15 years, I've seen dogs placed with health concerns that the rescues knew existed, and did not disclose. I've seen the same with breeders.

There are no blanket white/black hats. Puppy or dog buyers (and people who obtain dogs from rescues are dog buyers, if money changes hands) need to develop a good relationship with the breeder or rescue that places a dog with them, get to know them and their dog, and stay in touch if problems occur. If you think you can do that with a pet store or an internet "next day puppy" source, you are sadly mistaken, and in the vast majority of the cases, the horror stories you hear about dogs dying within days or weeks of purchase are from those sources.

Well, I have a lot of thoughts about this. I should probably knock off now.

Kate_wa

Thank You Kate_wa. That was a much appreciated comment.

as the saying goes.. what she said.. and thanks for pointing out that it is a SALE when money changes hands.. rescue or purchase for a breeder.. or even a pet store..laws like this are meant to be abused.. and really solve nothing..

I've had three purebred chihuahuas. #1 was given up by an owner whose circumstances had changed. #2's owner had died and #3 was a shelter adoption. I've had four purebred pugs. #1 was a shelter adoption. #2 was given up by her owner whose life was about to change. I adopted #3 from a shelter. #4 was adopted from a shelter. She'd been a puppy mill mama for 6 years.

Of course I understand that these dogs exist(ed) because they were bred. I don't think for a minute that we should lose breeds that have existed for hundreds or thousands of years.

I would never purchase a dog or cat from a breeder. That would involve a sale. I'd rather save a life. I donate the adoption fee at a shelter because it enables them to continue to operate. It is a charitable donation.

Imo, what desperately, desperately need some basic regulation are the rescues. I don't know if Dr. K has entertained the subject. I'd LOVE to get in on that discussion.

I realize I am late in responding. I usually am, as I save my newsletters to read "later."

I think this is a really bad idea. What happens to the animals who are returned? They are not products, they are living things. The breeders and dealers will have to pay for their upkeep/feeding/health care, and most of us probably KNOW they won't want to do that. Does this mean that animals that are returned will be killed? The thought gives me the willies!

Maybe if the legislation limited compensation to monetary only, I could swallow it, but not this form of it. I feel the animals would be treated cruelly or outright killed by the people who are forced to take them back! :(