 Barked: Mon Sep 28, '09 2:59pm PST |
 | |  | | That's touchy, really.
In Georgia, anyone who produces more than one litter per female per year or who produces more than thirty animals per year is considered a breeder and must have a liscense. I don't know how well it's enforced, though.
The thing is, no matter what we all think about breeding standards, responsible breeding, whatever, these are our morals, our principles. We live in a country where hundreds of thousands of animals are bred in factory farm conditions and die in slaughterhouses every day. It is hypocritical to think of the dogs' welfare without thinking of their welfare, as well- according to my morality, anyway.
Many of these laws sound good on paper. Random inspections at any time, dogs' living quarters must be so many square feet and must be clean at all times.
At seven in the morning, a responsible breeder could be rousted from bed in their own home and have their dogs confiscated because they were crate training some show hopefuls and/or their puppy pen was soiled from the night before.
Some people wish to breed dogs with stellar conformation and don't care as much about working instinct. Some people care only about working instinct and don't care about conformation and typiness, so long as the dog is functional and healthy. Which breeder is right and wrong? Or are they both right? That's where the moral ambiguity comes in.
And lastly, as much as I hate to see poorly bred dogs suffer and die, as much as I hate to see innocent people buy dogs that are unhealthy and unstable, as long as dogs are reasonably well cared for, I don't think it's my place to tell people what to do with their own animals. That's just my two cents.
ETA: You cannot legislate ethics and you cannot legislate quality of life.Edited by author Mon Sep 28, '09 3:00pm PST
|  |  | |  |
|
[notify] |
1
Abby! All the laws I see want things that just aren't possible to have an raise puppies in a home. I saw things like "no porous surfaces or toys."
