Dog Owners Have Mixed Opinions on Pup...

Dog Owners Have Mixed Opinions on Puppy Mill Bill: COMMENT NOW

There are 110 comments on the Fox 8 WGHP story from Aug 8, 2009, titled Dog Owners Have Mixed Opinions on Puppy Mill Bill: COMMENT NOW. In it, Fox 8 WGHP reports that:

State lawmakers have a plan to protect dogs from inhumane treatment. Yet not every animal group supports the so-called puppy mill bill.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox 8 WGHP.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Angela J

High Point, NC

#1 Aug 8, 2009
I think that people should be ready to accept inspections. Those who don't want to be inspected are the ones that need to be out of business.

Greensboro, NC

#2 Aug 8, 2009
I totally agree. This is just the start in a much needed change in protecting animals. There should be no problem in registering your dogs. If you are reputable, then you should not object to this small fee. If you are a breeder, I would think you would welcome legislation that helps protect animals.
Chuck Huckabee

Raleigh, NC

#3 Aug 8, 2009
This is another example of the government's failure to enforce the laws already in existence being broken by a very small percentage of dog breeders. Their answer: punish everyone, take the easy way out. This bill, if made into law, is only the first step towards total elimination of homeowner's breeding of pets of all kinds.
Kim Alboum

Durham, NC

#4 Aug 8, 2009
The information provided by Fox in this video is not correct. The bill states that a license will be required if you have 15 or more intact females not 15 or more dogs. The AKC is not stating the facts correctly.

The AKC opposes this bill because they receive money for every registered puppy. They make a fortune off of the puppy mills. Their inspection process has nothing to do with ensuring the health and quality of the dogs. Their inspector had recently inspected the puppy mill that was busted in Wayne County and gave it a passing grade.

Greensboro, NC

#5 Aug 8, 2009
Breeders who sell to pet stores or careless owners or just breed for money (not inspecting the male and female's genetic line) shouldn't breed at all. Responsible breeders only breed out their dogs a few times, and often donate to breed related rescue groups. Being a rescuer of the UNwanted (pure bred and mix) I'd like to see tough laws against sloppy breeders. Why breed or buy when millions in shelters and streets die?

Greensboro, NC

#6 Aug 8, 2009
I agree that they need to start somewhere. This is to stop the inhumane treatment. The AKC members are not being punished. If they fall under the catagory of having more than 15 dogs, then pay the fee and move on. There is a reason this has to be a wide net. No one truly knows how people are treating their animals. All they want to make sure is that they are being kept in good conditions. Why would they oppose that?

New York, NY

#7 Aug 8, 2009
This is a bill to protect the dogs. People without a personal, vested interest are for it. People who have a vested interest -- either their egos are tied up in dog breeding/showing or their income depends on it -- are obviously against it. If you're a responsible show breeder who breeds a few litters a year, odds are you won't need to register. And if you do, then pay your $50 and yes, you might get inspected. Is it really such a burden on those "show breeders" to help the innocent animals who are not simply exploited but, more often than not, suffer horribly? This "industry" has flown under the radar for far too long. Kudos to the NC legislature for taking this on.
Steve Wallis

Dillon, SC

#8 Aug 8, 2009
S460 is a seriously flawed bill being promoted on the bogus premise that current NC law doesn't work. Check the news folks, the Wayne County breeder whose operation was shut down by HSUS has been indited on twelve counts of animal cruelty. Can't ask for more effective laws than that.

The bill as it now is written requires the state's Counties to enforce its remaining provisions. This will mean higher local taxes instead of the State paying for the enforcement costs, which are significant. The Wayne county bust cost that county in excess of $100,000 and they only had the dogs for less than a week. Then there are the costs of investigation and disposal of seized dogs, none of which are included in the above total.

Lastly, this bill adds nothing to the enforcement of cruelty laws in our state. Why enact a bill that won't be enforced because of the hidden costs and doesn't better conditions for animals that are in need of care?
Henri McClees

Kinston, NC

#9 Aug 8, 2009
For generations, hunters & hunting dog breeders in North Carolina have diligently cared for our dogs and maintained strong, healthy blood lines. Freshman state Senator Don Davis says he filed the so called "Puppy Mill" bill because of a bad dog kennel in his district. The Wayne County kennel has been closed, and all the dogs seized by civil order. The dogs are gone permanently, and the business destroyed. The kennel owner faces criminal charges this month in Goldsboro, including twelve (12) counts of animal cruelty. How much more is needed? We say the bad situation has been handled effectively under our present laws. North Carolina has aggressive civil and criminal statutes against animal cruelty. We are proud of our State's strong animal protection statutes. What we will not tolerate is intrusion into our sport and traditions by radicals who despise our ownership of dogs and the selective breeding of any animals. The HSUS is not about protecting puppies & kittens. Our excellent local shelters do this work. The HSUS's long range agenda includes destruction of pure bred varieties of dogs and decimation of animal husbandry. The vegans want to rule in North Carolina, but we say NO.

United States

#10 Aug 8, 2009
NC already has laws on the books to protect animals from inhumane treatment, be it a person who has one dog, or many, breeds or does not breed. We need to enforce existing laws, not burden our state with duplicate laws, taking yet more money that we do not have to train and implement this H$U$ plan. I ask you, where is the nearly half a million dollars going to come from to implement this? Why not simply enforce what we already have.

And, have any of you, the taxpayers of this state, thought about the loss of the $45 plus million dollar a year the state brings in from sanctioned dog shows? Oops, more revenue lost! And that is not even mentioning the cat show folks. We are already in a world of hurt financially, what is wrong with people that they fall victim to staged "heists" of animals, and always in the worst conditions? Trust me, as a groomer, with over 50 years working with your pets, I have seen some animals in the same condition when they came in to be groomed. It is not the NUMBER of pets one has, but the ABILITY of the caregiver that determines the condition of the animal.

Get the ones who are not presently complying with existing laws, and there will be no problems. And, personally, I don't want someone coming into my bedroom where I would have a momma and babies. You have no right to be in my house, uninvited!

And no, sorry, I do not breed dogs, my 2 babies are altered, by CHOICE. I, however, do not believe in someone infringing on my rights as an American citizen.

My children and grandchildren have their pets, and I want to protect the right of my great grandchildren to have the same wonderful experience of the companionship of their pets.

We need to encourage our elected officials to vote NO on SB460. It is bad for the state and it is bad for future generations to come.
Jacqueline Gibson

Wake Forest, NC

#11 Aug 8, 2009
SB460 states that if you have 15 or more intact females you are a "Puppy Mill". The number of dogs you have has nothing to do with the way they are treated, and everything to do with the owner. If an owner is going to neglect or abuse their dog(s), they are going to do it wether they have one dog or 15 dogs. SB460 states that if a kennel produces 30 puppies or more, you are a "Puppy Mill". 4 or 5 females bred once a year can produce 30 puppies easily. This is hardly a "Puppy Mill" setting. Even if the numbers change I would oppose this bill. Why? Current laws are already in place to deal with such issues as animal neglect, and abuse. Those laws do need to be enforced, but creating new laws based on fictional information brought forth by an animal extremist group (HSUS), is not the way to go. Enforce existing laws.
Susan Wolf

Charlotte, NC

#12 Aug 8, 2009
SB 460 assumes that an owner of 15 or more female dogs is not capable of managing and maintaining their animals in good health without state intervention. It is wrong to use a numerical basis to begin excessive regulation of dog breeders; numbers do not correlate to quality of care. Laws for animal welfare and to prevent animal-cruelty are already in place to protect all animals whether it is one dog or one hundred.
SB460 was not drafted to solve the problem of bad kennels in our state. It is part of a nationwide campaign by HSUS to legislate, reduce and restrict purebred dog breeding. HSUS used their enormous wealth and resources to bring their failed federal campaign to 32 states this past year seeking success in legislating purebred dog breeding programs. To date, HSUS has again met failure in 19 of the 32 attempts with 6 states including NC pending.
Do not be fooled. The bill has nothing to do with animal welfare and everything to do with control over dog breeding and personal rights.
Natalie Rowntree

Henderson, NC

#13 Aug 8, 2009
Many of you who have commented need to spend a couple of hours reading current state statutes and the 5th version of this bill, as well as the fiscal impact statement. Current statutes are adequate to halt cruelty to animals. This bill will benefit animals about as much as painting them purple so they are easier to is a step in the animal rights agenda to abolish breeding of any type. To the poster who states that the only reason to breed is ego or money...your ignorance is showing. Dogs are bred to carry on exceptional traits and skills and to pass them on to the next generation of dog owners. Whether it's a hunting dog, conformation dog, agility dog, tracking dog, or seeing eye dog, without careful oversight and breeding, there will be no more. While this would make the animal rights zealots happy, we will fight you every step of the way.
These people have wasted huge amounts of your money getting legislators to throw their bills around...time better spent on schools, care for the elderly--all those things cut from the State budget. Time to take off the rose colored glasses and get a look at the big picture.
HSUS does not speak for me!
Lisa Brown


#14 Aug 8, 2009
For those who think this is a good bill, open your eyes. Why HSUS is dropping big money into our state (and local) lawmaking processes with paid lobbyists is a big red flag. Look at their published tax returns and see for yourself how very little they do to care for animals. So, if a multi million dollar so-called charity is campaigning to violate the essence of constitutional search and seizure rights, something is inherently wrong! Sure, I won't sell anything I may breed in my house. I'll give them away before I give up any of my rights. And if I know you support these laws and/or HSUS, you will not get an animal from me!

Sparks, NV

#15 Aug 8, 2009
I wish all of these people would STOP thinking about their own tiny little life and open their eyes to the horrific abuse and deplorable conditions these animals are living in. I don't know how these ppl can sleep at night who oppose ensuring animals have a right to not live in filth, be used as baby making machines, sit in tiny cages outside in all weather conditions, never have any vet care, sit in their own urine and feces until someone decides they deserve better.
Pass that bill NOW!!!! and let the puppy ppl pay the price for not taking better care of animals.

Sparks, NV

#16 Aug 8, 2009
You people make me sick!!!

Not one of you ppl complaining has ANY concern for the welfare of the MILLIONS of animals abused, tortured and kept for profit at the expense of their well being. You ppl who are complaining about your rights please "GIVE ME A BREAK!!"
Animals have RIGHTS!!! and if you ppl would been more concerned about the millions of animals living in mills you would not be here having to have the govt make you, but not one of you ppl has the concern to ensure these puppy mills are eradicated instead you complain, complain, complain. So there is NO sympathy for your pathetic "rights" wimpering. I hope you ALL pay, pay and pay for your neglect because you've already lost your rights as human beings.

If your not part of the solution then your part of the problem and frankly we're sick of this problem!!

Reidsville, NC

#17 Aug 8, 2009
Personally, I think dog breeding should be abolished anyway. How can dog breeders call themselves dog lovers, when millions, yes MILLIONS, of dogs are euthanized each year in animal shelters? What about these "mutts"? Aren't they worth anything, aren't they lovable enough? Oh that's right, no one wants them because they aren't "pure", and they didn't cost several 100 dollars, sometimes several 1000 dollars. In my opinion, most people who purchase pure bred dogs have no "love of the breed", it is only a status symbol. And if dog breeders truly loved the breed, or loved dogs in general, they would not willfully contribute to the pet overpopulation.
And just a little tidbit fact here; according to the Humane Society of the United States, 25% of all dogs in animal shelters are pure bred.

Reidsville, NC

#18 Aug 8, 2009
Chuck Huckabee wrote:
This is another example of the government's failure to enforce the laws already in existence being broken by a very small percentage of dog breeders. Their answer: punish everyone, take the easy way out. This bill, if made into law, is only the first step towards total elimination of homeowner's breeding of pets of all kinds.
Why in God's name would anyone want to breed "pets of all kinds" anyway?! When there are already millions of unwanted but wonderful, lovable animals in shelters and on the streets that so desperately need a home?

High Point, NC

#19 Aug 9, 2009
Yes, they have to start somewhere and if not 15 then 20? you can see the difference between pups that are from a new litter and those that are not.. once the puppy mills are non existent then the legal breeders will have nothing to fear.Other states with breeders and such laws aren't barking about it..they love the "NO PUPPY MILLS" laws the laws are to protect the puppy's and the poor over breed dogs and the unfit breeding conditions these animals live in. these PUPPY MILLS want to sale their dogs for hundreds of dollars with no shots,in poor health, neurological problems caused by so much interbreeding between each other.. they are just another form of a SCAM ARTIST in this state.. so run them out of town. make laws to protect the animals not the honest breeders. the laws are aimed at the illegal operations only do some research people. we have been tiring to educate the area,but people just want to talk here and not put there words into action..
Susan Wolf

Charlotte, NC

#20 Aug 9, 2009
Animals in shelters have absolutely NOTHING to do with a wanted, planned litter of dogs. Ten years of study and reports have proven beyond doubt that dogs in shelters are primarily surrendered by their owners due to personal life crisis, animal behavior problems, moving and other issues. It is the animal rightist attack on breeders that tries to make this connection and keeps alive the fallacy that there is a surplus. Read before you continue to chant the AR misinformation. Sources: Nathan Winograd; Gary Patronek, DVM, PhD; National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy. Even HSUS was forced to admit there was no pet crisis back in 2001.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Greensboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Snitch list (Dec '14) Jan 19 y k w 24
Greg Jan 14 Amber 1
News Funeral Held for President of Hells Angels (Jul '09) Jan 12 ghilary 147
Hugh Adams of Summerfield NC obituary (Feb '11) Dec '17 Psams 9
Review: BIT Security (Apr '11) Dec '17 Sassy 29
Boy (Aug '16) Nov '17 Mrr 9
Black Feminisim Nov '17 three blocks 1

Greensboro Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Greensboro Mortgages