OHIO people with dogs

[runamuk]

I wanted to cross post this as I know we have a few members in Ohio. To me this is another case of legislation that means well (possibly) but in the end will only hurt the honest people.

> If anyone breeds dogs in Ohio, you may want to look at this bill.

It is the

> worst one I've seen anywhere, except it doesn't include cats.

>

> http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_HB_606

>

> You'll be commercial if you sell more than 25 animals, or own 9 or

> more dogs. A commercial license for 9-25 animals is $5000 YEARLY.

Then the

> next level is $10,000 got 26-50 a year. If you own 51 dogs the fee

is

> $50,000.

>

> In reasonable terms, 2 labs having 13 puppies each would cause you

to pay

> $5000 for a kennel license. Keeping 5 dogs in a kennel that could

house 10

> dogs could cause you to be required to pay the $5000. The way the

bill is

> worded you could be charged a $5000 to $50,000 kennel fee yearly,

if you had

> a empty kennel building on your property.

rori

 

[Greystone]

I don't live in Ohio but thought I would take a gander at it. The way I read it is 9 or more breeding dogs; not the pups. They define a "dog" as being over 8 months of age. Most people sell them at 8 weeks.

I also read it as having the capacity to house 16 to 25 for the $5k fee. So you could be deemed a commercial kennel if you have 9 adult dogs but don't pay the fee unless your property can house 16.

I hate legal documents; it is like they purposely write them confusingly.

 

[Warpony]

if this fee works like the ones in other states what "the capacity to house 16 to 25 for the $5k fee" means is that for the $5k you have the legal right to have that many dogs. If you have an empty kennel with room for 25 dogs you won't pay a thing unless you actually HAVE dogs. They usually drop in unexpectedly to check the number of dogs to make sure you are not going over.

 

[runamuk]

I don't live in Ohio but thought I would take a gander at it. The way I read it is 9 or more breeding dogs; not the pups. They define a "dog" as being over 8 months of age. Most people sell them at 8 weeks.

I also read it as having the capacity to house 16 to 25 for the $5k fee. So you could be deemed a commercial kennel if you have 9 adult dogs but don't pay the fee unless your property can house 16.

I hate legal documents; it is like they purposely write them confusingly.

yes they do that on purpose.............the problem is they have covered every base they can come up with......this particular section pertains to ALL dog owners.......

Sec. 955.05. After the thirty-first day of January of any year, except as otherwise provided in section 955.012 or 955.16 of the Revised Code, every person, immediately upon becoming the owner, keeper, or harborer of any dog more than three months of age or brought from outside the state during any year, shall file like applications, with fees, as required by section 955.01 of the Revised Code, for registration for the current year. If such the application is not filed and the fee paid, within thirty days after such the dog is acquired, becomes three months of age, or is brought from outside the state, the auditor shall assess a penalty in an amount equal to the registration fee upon such the owner, keeper, or harborer, which must shall be paid with the registration fee.
Every person becoming the owner of a kennel of dogs after the thirty-first day of January of any year shall file like applications, with fees, as required by section 955.04 of the Revised Code, for the registration of such kennel for the current calendar year. If such application is not filed and the fee paid within thirty days after the person becomes the owner of such kennel, the auditor shall assess a penalty in an amount equal to the registration fee upon the owner of such kennel.

Sec. 955.07. Upon the filing of the application for registration required by sections section 955.01 and 955.04 of the Revised Code and upon the payment of the registration fee and the administrative fee, if applicable, the county auditor shall assign a distinctive number to every dog or dog kennel described in the application and shall deliver a certificate of registration bearing the number to the owner of the dog or dog kennel. A record of all certificates of registration issued, together with the applications for registration, shall be kept by the auditor in a dog and kennel register for two years or until after an audit performed by the auditor of state, whichever is later. This record shall be open to the inspection of any person during reasonable business hours.

Sec. 955.10. No owner of a dog, except a dog constantly confined to a registered commercial dog kennel licensed under Chapter 4780. of the Revised Code, shall fail to require the dog to wear, at all times, a valid tag issued in connection with a certificate of registration. A dog's failure at any time to wear a valid tag shall be prima-facie evidence of lack of registration and shall subject any dog found not wearing such a tag to impounding, sale, or destruction.

And people thought NAIS was scary it just keeps getting worse...next we will be registering our children upon their birth

: geee starts sounding more and more like china (I thought we were in a free country)

: :no:

If you read it fully WARPONY it does state that you must register IF you can house the dogs not just if you have that many................it is a scary bill

 

[kaykay]

i live in ohio. I occassionally have a litter of pups to sell. I think this new law is wonderful!!! When I moved here I could not believe how many puppy mills operated in ohio. We went to a farm dispersal auction last sspring and they were definately a puppy mill. I was disgusted by the amount of dogs that were caged and for sale. My hope is this will drastically cut down on the puppy mill operations.

 

[Shelley]

I understand what you're saying KayKay, and even though I'm in Michigan and not Ohio, we don't keep or breed the numbers that would be any problem with that legislation either. In fact, we recently bred a bitch for the first time in 3-1/2 years.

The problem though is that once they get their foot in the door with legislation like that, it just paves the way for more and more and more until it will become more trouble to own a dog than what it's worth. That's why it's so important to keep those kinds of laws OFF the books. The puppy mills will just find ways around them, anyway. Unfortunately, I can't see them ever being eliminated...and I'd hate to see this type of thing force us breeders who try to do everything the right way out, and only have the mills left... scarey.

Shelley

 

[runamuk]

I understand what you're saying KayKay, and even though I'm in Michigan and not Ohio, we don't keep or breed the numbers that would be any problem with that legislation either. In fact, we recently bred a bitch for the first time in 3-1/2 years.

The problem though is that once they get their foot in the door with legislation like that, it just paves the way for more and more and more until it will become more trouble to own a dog than what it's worth. That's why it's so important to keep those kinds of laws OFF the books. The puppy mills will just find ways around them, anyway. Unfortunately, I can't see them ever being eliminated...and I'd hate to see this type of thing force us breeders who try to do everything the right way out, and only have the mills left... scarey.

Shelley

exactly :aktion033: :aktion033:

 

[Warpony]

If you read it fully WARPONY it does state that you must register IF you can house the dogs not just if you have that many................it is a scary bill

I asked an attourney I speak to on a private forum to look at this. he asked why portions of the quote you posted were crossed out but I don;t know why that is. Anyway, he said he would ask a collegue in Ohio about it and see what he said, I'm curious to see what they have to say about it. I hate reading anything in that legal-speak they use for this stuff.

 

[runamuk]

If you read it fully WARPONY it does state that you must register IF you can house the dogs not just if you have that many................it is a scary bill

I asked an attourney I speak to on a private forum to look at this. he asked why portions of the quote you posted were crossed out but I don;t know why that is. Anyway, he said he would ask a collegue in Ohio about it and see what he said, I'm curious to see what they have to say about it. I hate reading anything in that legal-speak they use for this stuff.

The crossed out portions are changes to the current law that are being proposed....so basically that is the editing and re writing of the bill as proposed to be voted on.

That is how they change laws they strike and add and use the lovely legalese so we mere constituents can't read it and protest :bgrin :bgrin

:

 

[Warpony]

The crossed out portions are changes to the current law that are being proposed....so basically that is the editing and re writing of the bill as proposed to be voted on.

That is how they change laws they strike and add and use the lovely legalese so we mere constituents can't read it and protest :bgrin :bgrin

:

Oh yes, they intentionally want to make it impossible for the average person to understand. My eyes glaze over after about 4 words. I heard back from that attourney, he still hasn't heard from his collegue in Ohio but he did have some comments about the proposed bill if you would liek to read them. The link in your original post didn't work for me but he was able to get through and read the whole thing.

 

[MiniHoofBeats]

I'll add something...I am in Ohio right now training to become an animal control officer. My dream job =) Yesterday I got to take a tour through the Montgomerry County animal resource center, built brand new with something like 300 kennels...and i'll tell you what...EVERY kennel has a dog in it. EVERY kennel has a dog that is more likely to be put down, than adopted because too many people breed...I think everyone who wants to breed any litter at all should pay a fee for a licence, there is too much "free will" breeding of dogs and even though you want to think they all are sold to good homes...reality folks, half of those dogs will end up in a shelter either given up, or brought in as a stray.

Average state-wide percentage of animals that actually are adopted from a shelter is 10%...know what that means? 9 out of 10 dogs in a typical shelter get euthanized, because the average joe schmo would rather buy a purebred, $500 puppy than give a stray dog a life long home. (this is just average by the way, some shelters adopt out up to 50% of their animals, and even better..no kill shelters!)

Nothing against those of you who breed in particular, heck you all know my own mom breeds bengal kitties!!!

this is sad news, but it is reality...I think this new Ohio law is a great one, who in the heck needs 9 breeding adult dogs anyhow?? What really killed me is that Ohio is a breed specific state, meaning pit bulls, maybe even rottweilers and soon chows, will go on the list as non-adoptable dogs...the breed comes in, they get euthanized...a house of pit bulls bred to fight was found a few weekends ago, 31 pit bulls brought in...one a tiny puppy that could fit in the palms of your hands and you know what is going to happen to that puppy? not a new home...

This is probably going to bring up a bunch of talk but, the new law was made for a reason...there's already hundreds of dogs at this one shelter ALONE that are begging for a new home, and will never get one.

Ok, everyone go out and adopt a dog now!!

:

 

[runamuk]

Average state-wide percentage of animals that actually are adopted from a shelter is 10%...know what that means? 9 out of 10 dogs in a typical shelter get euthanized, because the average joe schmo would rather buy a purebred, $500 puppy than give a stray dog a life long home. (this is just average by the way, some shelters adopt out up to 50% of their animals, and even better..no kill shelters!)

Responsible breeders who are showing and breeding in a limited manner just might have 9 dogs over 8 months of age and not have a litter a year. Heck they may not have a litter every other year. Yet joe schmoe with his mutt that runs the neighborhood has been cranking out 2 litters a year of 10-14 pups every year because they don't feel like spaying and neutering.......that is why the shelters are so full of mutts. Then there are all those who have jumped on the "designer doodle" wagon and are making big bucks producing more mutts........................The unscrupulous puppy mills cranking out thousands of dogs to supply auctions and pet stores.................

This bill does not really and truly address those people as those people will continue to hide or not report or heck up and move to where they can still legally do this.....................the people who will be punished are the true fanciers who care about their chosen breed and enjoy showing more than cranking out puppies.

I am sure if this bill was addressing horses everyone here would be in an uproar

:

 

[kaykay]

you cant compare dogs to horses. horses dont have litters they have one foal per year. not two litters of up to 15 puppies per year. Huge difference there.

Maybe this bill will help maybe it wont. My hope is it will force a lot of the puppy mills out that wont pay for the kennel license.

i only had 3 breeding adult dogs and believe me thats enough. In fact i spayed one female so now i only have 2 breedable adult dogs and I didnt breed any this year. So to me to imagine 9 adult dogs ughhh. Cant even fathom it.

 

[capall beag]

I cannot imagine opposing any bill that was aimed at controling the HORRENDOUS over population of dogs.

I think anyone who has over 9 breeding dogs at their home is a BIG breeder and paying $5,000 isn't much.

Why would you own 9+ breeding dogs and not be breeding any of them?

Does this law include someone who owns 9 neutered dogs? If so I think that should be changed but if you have 9+ unneutered animals you are a commercial breeder and making good money doing it.

I KNOW there are plenty of good responsible breeders BUT there are TONS more who are not...........the numbers of dogs being abandoned in shelters is absolutely APPALLING!!!!!!!

I think breeders who do not take some ongoing responsibility for the dogs they produce are shameful!

I mean the dog millers are scumbags but there are MANY other breeders who are very irresponsible.

I may be mistaken on my interpretation of the bill and if I am I apologise for my little RANT!

:

 

[runamuk]

I think anyone who has over 9 breeding dogs at their home is a BIG breeder and paying $5,000 isn't much.Why would you own 9+ breeding dogs and not be breeding any of them?

I guess the dog people I know who show must be very different than the ones the others here know. I waited 2 years for my pup from the breeder and she has 9 unaltered dogs 8 over 8 months 1 to be spayed as she is retired after 3 litters(in 6 years) 1 older male 1 young male 2 show bitches 1 show pup and 2 not showing but not old enough for all the testing needed prior to any breeding and 1 female that she just got to show but isn't in show condition. I have known her for 10 years now and I believe in 10 years she has had 4 litters and every pup was spoken for prior to her ever breeding. Lucky for her she isn't in Ohio but we both know people who are. Of course many of these people also often have rescues in their homes that are unaltered even though they will be altered before being adopted. I suppose they could make a point of no longer taking in the rescues that the shelters often place with them.

This will also be a killer on the handlers who house their clients show dogs during the show season many of these people never breed a litter but often handle 9+ dogs. OR suppose you own 4 dogs and board 5 for a friend...well you just hit the majic number.

I actually do not see the difference when compared to horses if suddenly anyone owning more than 9 unaltered horse had to pay 5000 a year for a license I bet there would be an uproar. Just look at the uproar the NAIS has already caused just wanting people to account for their stock. This bill will do the exact thing all the NAIS opponents are claiming...it will drive the small hobbyists out and only the big commercial (IE puppymill's) to continue.

 

[Warpony]

By the way, the lawyer I mentioned that I speak to on another forum did hear back from his collegue in Ohio who reviewed the bill. he said the definitions they use for "kennel" all say "means an establishment that keeps, houses, and maintains nine or more adult dogs". So this is refering to the number of dogs they actually keep at any given time not whether or not they have the facilities to keep them. He said that is in the bill down towards the bottom, where they have a list of definitions for terms they used.

However he did also say this:

My bigger concern would be their language used earlier about the ages of dogs involved, as quoted below. Many small breed kennels keep their puppies until 10 to 12 weeks of age. According to section 955.05 it seems that if the dogs are still on the premises (as implied by the word “harborer†which seems to simply mean anyone who has the dog whether they own it or not) after becoming three months of age they would be required to have the dog licensed. I would STRONGLY caution any client of mine to keep IMACULATE records of age, including veterinary statements that confirm date of birth and to have those pups gone by three months of age to avoid possible fines. While the definitions say clearly they consider an adult dog to be a dog 8 months or older, this leaves a huge loop hole between the age of 3 months and 8 months that could allow them to cause someone a lot of grief.

I've done animal rescue (mostly cats) in the past, I know many people who foster dogs for rescues and frequently have as many as 10 adult dogs being retrained and rehabilitated in preperation for being rehomed. I also know people who show dogs (some who do not even breed) who have as many as 10 or 12 dogs. $5000 seems a very high price that will effect people like that as well. I'm all for stopping puppy mills, and any irresponsible breeding at all, but i just think this bill goes about it the wrong way because the irresponsible people will just keep doing what they are doing and won;t report the number of dogs they have. This will mostly penalise the people who are trying to do things RIGHT, not the ones who are doing things WRONG.

There are already laws on the books that if properly enforced could cut down significantly on the puppy mills, irresponsible breeders, and animal abusers but it would require more people reporting abuses and better enforcement of the laws already in place.

(BTW this bill does not stipulate 9 breeding dogs, it says 9 adult dogs. There is no differentiation between 9 pet dogs that are all spayed and neutered and 9 unaltered dogs who may or may not be used for breeding.)

 

[CyndiD]

BTW this bill does not stipulate 9 breeding dogs, it says 9 adult dogs. There is no differentiation between 9 pet dogs that are all spayed and neutered and 9 unaltered dogs who may or may not be used for breeding.)

This is exactly what will kill most of the breed rescues...we need to be able to foster dogs and now that we are limited, so will the possible rescues. I think if the puppy mills are a problem, then why isn`t there more emphasis on that??? Why is the FDA allowing this to go on...most of the Missouri mills are FDA approved and even the hidden camera episodes on TV did nothing.

If this would help eliminate the mills, then I am all for it, but I doubt it will do a thing to stop them. People need to be educated on PUREBRED dogs in general..and waaayyy too much emphasis is being placed on those AKC papers which in reality mean nothing...and people also need to see where their puppies are being bred and raised before plunking down that money...

this has always been a sore spot for me. :no:

 

[MountainViewMiniatures]

I cannot imagine opposing any bill that was aimed at controling the HORRENDOUS over population of dogs.

I think anyone who has over 9 breeding dogs at their home is a BIG breeder and paying $5,000 isn't much.

Why would you own 9+ breeding dogs and not be breeding any of them?

Hi

Just a quick note to say I know many people who show in the Fancy , myself included, who own 9 breeding age dogs who do not breed or breed on a very limited basis. I have had 2 litters in 25 years. If you show in conformation classes, your dog is not allowed to be neutered and would be disqualified. Obedience or agility classes can be neutered. I have seen similar legislation but it was aimed at the problem- the pet breeder or puppy mills - the dog fanciers' who can prove that they showed their dogs at recognised events (ie AKC conformation classes) in at least a specified # of shows each year were allowed to file exemptions.

The bulk of dog overpopulation is not coming from this group- most are very careful who their puppies go to and also will take back a dog at any point in their life if the owner is unable to keep them any longer. There is an enormous industry revolving around the purebred Fancy - truthfully, people would be much better off buying from a reputable breeder as they will have pet quality dogs sold on spay/neuter limited registration contracts that may not be show quality but are way above and beyond the quality they would find at a pet store, at a better price and a contact (the breeder) to supply them with all kinds of info from puppy care specfic to that breed and up. Pet stores should be charged these kinds of fees to have puppies - many of these buys are impulse with no thought what they puppy will be as a mature adult and are outrageously priced considering the quality of the puppy and the fact that these come mostly from puppy mills. Believe me - no one in the Fancy would ever sell their puppies to a pet store or broker!

By the way, by reputable breeder I mean someone who does show, does genetic testing, belongs to the AKC not the PRA or whatever else made up registries out there, requires questions asked on both sides, possibly a vet reference, has a sales contract and is willing to take the puppy back at any point in it's life, and sells their puppies as pets on a limited registration with a spay/neuter contract. There is absolutely no need for a pet dog to be left unaltered and I wish that dog conformation classes existed for the "geldings" of the dog world so to speak

:

 

[Warpony]

By the way, by reputable breeder I mean someone who does show, does genetic testing, belongs to the AKC not the PRA or whatever else made up registries out there, requires questions asked on both sides, possibly a vet reference, has a sales contract and is willing to take the puppy back at any point in it's life, and sells their puppies as pets on a limited registration with a spay/neuter contract. There is absolutely no need for a pet dog to be left unaltered and I wish that dog conformation classes existed for the "geldings" of the dog world so to speak

:

:aktion033: :aktion033:

I agree completely. I call these 'responsible breeders" simply because I have known some VERY irresponsible breeders who had GREAT reputations.

In the breeds today the genetic and health testing is SO important. If a breeder does it RIGHT they very rarely turn a profit, and frequently they LOSE money, but they do it because they love the breed and want to share their breed with others in the best possible way.

*often a pet quality pup from a show breeder will cost LESS then a puppy mill/pet store/back yard breeder dog. I have a $400 rescue dog and a $10 retired show dog of a rare breed that frequently sells for $1000 to $3000 from less then responsible sources.

 

[runamuk]

I cannot imagine opposing any bill that was aimed at controling the HORRENDOUS over population of dogs.

I think anyone who has over 9 breeding dogs at their home is a BIG breeder and paying $5,000 isn't much.

Why would you own 9+ breeding dogs and not be breeding any of them?

Hi

Just a quick note to say I know many people who show in the Fancy , myself included, who own 9 breeding age dogs who do not breed or breed on a very limited basis. I have had 2 litters in 25 years. If you show in conformation classes, your dog is not allowed to be neutered and would be disqualified. Obedience or agility classes can be neutered. I have seen similar legislation but it was aimed at the problem- the pet breeder or puppy mills - the dog fanciers' who can prove that they showed their dogs at recognised events (ie AKC conformation classes) in at least a specified # of shows each year were allowed to file exemptions.

The bulk of dog overpopulation is not coming from this group- most are very careful who their puppies go to and also will take back a dog at any point in their life if the owner is unable to keep them any longer. There is an enormous industry revolving around the purebred Fancy - truthfully, people would be much better off buying from a reputable breeder as they will have pet quality dogs sold on spay/neuter limited registration contracts that may not be show quality but are way above and beyond the quality they would find at a pet store, at a better price and a contact (the breeder) to supply them with all kinds of info from puppy care specfic to that breed and up. Pet stores should be charged these kinds of fees to have puppies - many of these buys are impulse with no thought what they puppy will be as a mature adult and are outrageously priced considering the quality of the puppy and the fact that these come mostly from puppy mills. Believe me - no one in the Fancy would ever sell their puppies to a pet store or broker!

By the way, by reputable breeder I mean someone who does show, does genetic testing, belongs to the AKC not the PRA or whatever else made up registries out there, requires questions asked on both sides, possibly a vet reference, has a sales contract and is willing to take the puppy back at any point in it's life, and sells their puppies as pets on a limited registration with a spay/neuter contract. There is absolutely no need for a pet dog to be left unaltered and I wish that dog conformation classes existed for the "geldings" of the dog world so to speak

:

:aktion033: :aktion033: :aktion033: :aktion033:

Thank you so much for explaining that from a fanciers perspective.

I completely agree and so many people equate Papers with breeding quality

: I agree that the papers need to be from a reputable registry AKC or CKC as in Canadian Kennel Club not that hokey other one

: and from a responsible and reputable breeder such as yourself

:

:

Genetic testing is imperative and I agree showing is also important..having recently been pricing out and figuring out which tests my pup will need down the road I have no idea how any of the breeders I know could ever break even. Well they don't care about the money they truly enjoy their dogs and care about their breed. Just recently a breeder took back a dog who is 8 that she sold as a young retired show dog (was fixed as he didn't pass his tests) because the family was going through a messy divorce....these are the types of breeders we all should be dealing with.......

This legislation will hurt the very people that should be producing dogs.

sorry major soapbox issue for me

I shall stand down