Whether or not you presently have a dog or dogs in your family, you may in the future wish to adopt a dog into your family. Whether you adopt your next dog from a shelter or rescue organization or a breeder, you will want to adopt a healthy dog that does not have a genetic propensity to diseases and other expensive health problems. You will want to adopt a dog that is well socialized. The socialization period in developing puppies is between four weeks and twelve weeks in age, give or take.1 This does not necessarily mean that you have to socialize your dog before she is twelve weeks old: you can adopt a well socialized adolescent or adult dog. What this does mean is that the human caretaker of the four-to-twelve-week-old puppy--whoever that may be--has many responsibilities. Among these many responsibilities are the responsibility to socialize the puppy to other dogs (her mother and littermates are the obvious candidates, but there are, of course, situations in which a puppy can be raised in the company of other dogs) and the responsibility to socialize the puppy to humans. A puppy who is raised in a human home as a member of the family, such that the puppy is adequately socialized through sufficient individual attention from humans in their own sanitary and safe home, grows into a dog that is well-adapted to living with humans in our communities.
1 Fogel, Bruce, The Dog's Mind: Understanding Your Dog's Behavior (New York: Macmillan [Howell], 1990), 69-70, see also pp. 79-95.
An act relative to breeder licensing has been presented to the Massachusetts House of Representatives (H 4537). The American Kennel Club reports (from the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners) that "on March 24, 2004, H4537 was voted out of the Steering Committee and sent to the House floor listed with low priority, not requiring a vote for approval. Rep. James Eldridge (D - Acton, [Boxborough and Shirley]) blocked it so the next time it is presented a vote will be required."
Eldridge has graciously supplied (in a personal e-mail) the text of H 4537:
H 4537, AN ACT RELATIVE TO BREEDER LICENSING
Section 1: Chapter 129, section 39A of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition, is hereby amended in line 2 by inserting after the words "pet shop" the following:-
'or engaged in the incidental breeding and subsequent sale, barter or exchange of litters of more than three breeding females'
The statement from the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners (included on the AKC Legislation page) opposes the bill because its wording is seen to be ambivalent in failing to distinguish between females that are kept intact in order to be eligible for AKC titles and females that are kept intact in order to be bred. It is my understanding that a person who shows as a hobby but does not want to ever breed a litter would not be "engaged in the incidental breeding and subsequent sale, barter or exchange of litters of more than three breeding females:" neither the current law nor the proposed amendment to it appear to apply to such a person. The point of AKC dog shows, however, is, at least in small part, to determine which individuals are the best breeding stock: In the AKC's words "conformation (overall appearance and structure)" is "an indication of the dog's ability to produce quality puppies."
An inquiry to the AKC Canine Legislation Department regarding their position on the proposed legislation and how it impacts owners of dogs competing for AKC titles remains unanswered. The AKC's Canine Legislation web pages include their position statement on breeding restrictions:
The American Kennel Club strongly supports and actively promotes a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership.The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.
One fancier has explained by e-mail:
Hobby breeders oppose [MA 4537] and similar laws because they make no clear distinction between the commercial breeder, AKA puppy mills, and the person who keeps intact purebred dogs to show and breed as a hobby as opposed to a money making venture. Most hobby breeders keep only a few dogs, who live in the house and are personal pets as well as show and breeding dogs. Limiting them to three does not take into account that such breeders need to keep young dogs to see how they develop, and who keep older retired dogs. Then there is the fact that many toy breeds have very small litters, often only one, so if such breeders are limited to only three bitches, and one is a retired show/breeding dog, and two are youngsters too young to breed, who can they breed? Then there are the breeds, including standard poodles, who cannot get final clearance on much of their needed genetic health testing before the age of two.......These must be held back from breeding until then, so can't be bred yet. Most breeders need more than three bitches, at least some of the time to support a viable breeding effort.
Responsible hobby breeders acknowledge that these statements are true only of most hobby breeders and that there are some hobby breeders, who--perhaps because they have failed to adequately educate themselves on responsible breeding practices, or perhaps because they are unethical--engage in irresponsible breeding practices resulting in sickly dogs that are not adapted to live with humans in our communities.
The ambiguity that I find in the proposed amendment to MGL Chapter 129, section 39A is that it would extend the licensing and inspection requirements of the law to persons "engaged in the incidental breeding and subsequent sale, barter or exchange of litters of more than three breeding females," but the current version of the law specifies that it does not apply to "persons selling, exchanging or otherwise transferring the offspring of their personally owned animals." The ambiguity that the proposed amendment introduces into the current law appears to enable both the legal defense and the prosecution of hobby breeders. A lawyer defending an unlicensed hobby breeder would emphasize that the defendant sold, exchanged or otherwise transferred the offspring of her or his personally owned animals. A lawyer prosecuting the unlicensed breeder, on the other hand, would emphasize that the defendant engaged in the incidental breeding and subsequent sale, barter or exchange of litters of more than three breeding females.
It is the considered opinion of somervilledog.com that MA H 4537 falls short of the goal of insuring that the litters bred in Massachusetts produce dogs that are well adapted to live with humans in our communities in that the bill fails to address whether or not "every person engaged in the business of operating a pet shop or engaged in the incidental breeding and subsequent sale, barter or exchange of litters of more than three breeding females" can meet their responsibility to adequately socialize each puppy he or she produces. Furthermore, the ambiguity that MA H 4537 introduces MGL Chapter 129, section 39A would allow irresponsible and unethical breeders to continue to evade state licensing and inspection on the grounds that they personally own the animals whose litters they are selling.
Please contact your representative and tell her or him that MA H 4537 is bad legislation for the Commonwealth because it introduces ambiguity into the current law and would allow irresponsible and unethical breeders to continue evade state licensing and inspection on the grounds that they personally own the animals whose litters they are selling. The Commonwealth has a responsibility to its citizens to insure that the dogs we adopt as pets have been bred responsibly and have been socialized to other dogs and humans when they are puppies between four and twelve weeks old. MA 4537 does not advance responsible breeding practices.
Somerville Representatives (from the listing of state legislators by city/town on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts website):
Vincent P. Ciampa: ward four (precincts one and two) and ward seven (all precincts)
Patricia D. Jehlen: ward two (precinct three), ward three (all precincts), ward four (precinct three), ward five (all precincts) and ward six (all precincts)
Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.: ward one (all precincts), ward two (precincts one and two)
UPDATE 1 May 2004: For another opinion on this issue, see Bonnie Chandler's op-ed pieceon April 16, 2004 in The Harvard (MA) Post, "Thinking Aloud: Proposed legislation endangers the right to own animals."
Posted by Canis Major at April 3, 2004 4:11 PM in the following categories: Massachusetts