Saturday, July 4, 2009

Why you should oppose SB 460

SB 460 assumes that an owner of 15 or more dogs is not capable of managing and maintaining their animals in good health without state intervention. Numbers do not correlate to quality of care and it is wrong to use a numerical basis to begin excessive regulation of dog breeders.

SB 460 supporters claim the only reason to have 15 females is for mass producing puppies, i.e. continually breeding each female. NOT TRUE. The bill supporters are activists, NOT dog breeders and have no firsthand knowledge of what is necessary to build or maintain a breeding program. It is quite possible for someone to have 15 females without constantly producing puppies.

The requirement for annual veterinary certification of suitable health for breeding is not only vague but is unacceptable. Certification could require anything from routine physical exam to an expensive panel of blood tests and x-rays. There are no standardized, specific laboratory tests or specialized reproductive examination procedures that are suitable for assessing the health status of bitches for breeding. No other species has this pre-breeding regulation in place. This provision only serves to make breeding dogs more expensive and more complicated. The decision to breed or not breed a dog should remain at the discretion of the owner and not become a legislative mandate.

State licensing and regulation as a commercial entity will end dog breeding for anyone in a residential zoned area. The impact in rural-residential zoned areas will depend on the specifics written for each county and the final requirements for housing established by the NC Department of Agriculture.

The Fiscal Note on SB 460 has been provided by the Fiscal Research Division with input from NC DACS. The Department’s Animal Welfare Section estimates costs to implement a regulatory program are almost a half million dollars going forward with virtually no income. With a state budget shortfall in nearly of five billion dollars and government programs being cut, it is the height of irresponsibility to burden NCDA with this initiative.

No comments:

Post a Comment