Wisconsin Legislation Aims To
Eliminate Purebred Dog Breeding
Wisconsin Senate Bill 308 is an attempt to virtually eliminate the breeding of purebred dogs in that state. The legislation will needlessly harm many thousands of people who show, hunt, or compete in field trials or obedience events, or who simply raise dogs for enjoyment and companionship. Hobby breeding will be destroyed.
The bill would expose hundreds of high quality hobby breeders to intense regulation, heavy fines and possible imprisonment for noncompliance, while also denying them constitutional protections of due process and equal protection under the law. It also would expose even someone who raises only an occasional litter of puppies or sells a dog only on rare occasions to crippling risks and liabilities, while also denying the right to defend him/herself against the allegations.
Creating terrifying risks and liabilities is the animal rights agenda behind this legislation. It is meant to scare people badly enough that they will stop breeding dogs for any reason. For people who don’t get that message, draconian penalties in the bill are meant to destroy them financially and personally – and without a shred of justice or good cause!
There also is no language in the bill that would exempt animal shelters and rescue groups from severe “lemon law” fines and penalties, if an adopted puppy or dog less than 18 months old gets sick, dies or shows a hereditary problem. Requiring a donation is, in effect, establishing a purchase price. “Adoption” really means a transfer of ownership.
Please join The American Sporting Dog Alliance in our fight against this terrible legislation, and similar harmful legislation in many other states and on the federal level. Please visit our website at
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our grassroots alliance fights to protect the rights of sporting dog owners, hobbyists and professionals. We are your voice, and your membership is vital to help us do a good job for you.
The Wisconsin bill contains two parts: Licensing and kennel regulations, and a “lemon law” for dogs and puppies that are sold. This is very serious legislation. It is sponsored by 13 members of the 33-member Wisconsin State Senate, and 18 legislators also have signed on, including Democratic Party Secretary Jim Sullivan and Republican Caucus Vice Chairperson Carol Roessler.
Licensing is required for any kennel that sells 60 or more dogs in a year, or that maintains eight or more breeding females. The term “breeding females” is not defined in the legislation, but logically would be interpreted as any unsprayed female that has reached sexual maturity. Female dogs typically reach sexual maturity at about eleven months of age, and would be capable of being bred for their entire lives unless they are spayed.
Thus, many very small hobby breeders would be required to obtain a license, as serious dog fanciers often own many females of breeding age that are not used for breeding. This number would include older puppies that are being trained and evaluated, female dogs that are in their competitive prime in a variety of events, dogs that are used for hunting and companionship that happen to be female, and beloved elderly female dogs. The definition does not require female dogs to actually be used for breeding.
What does the licensing requirement mean for dog fanciers?
First of all, it means that they will have to follow unspecified rules about their kennel facilities, care of dogs and transportation of dogs. The rules are not part of the legislation.
Instead, the legislation gives the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection the unrestricted power to develop regulations without participation by the public, and without oversight and accountability by the Legislature. The bill gives the department a blank check drawn upon the lives and livelihoods of kennel owners and hobbyists.
For someone who violates any of these unspecified regulations, or who fails to get a license, devastating penalties are imposed: A $3,000 “forfeiture” for the first offense, a $5,000-to-$10,000 “fine” and 30-to-90 days of imprisonment for a second offense, and a $10,000 fine and 90 days in jail for a third offense.
For the first offense, someone who is accused of violating any of the rules would be denied his or her day in court. The “forfeiture” would be up to the Department. Thus, the kennel owner would be denied her or his constitutional right of a trial and due process of the law.
For any level of offense, devastating forfeitures, fines and jail terms could be imposed for even minor or technical violations of the rules, and licenses would be required to be revoked for a second or third violation.
Local law enforcement officials also would be able to investigate alleged violations, following a complaint from anyone, or if the officer “has reason to believe” that a violation has occurred. At that point, the Department would inspect a kennel, and the kennel owner would have to pay for the costs of the inspection if a violation of any kind is alleged. The kennel owner also would have to pay for the costs of a re-inspection if it is required. No limits are given to these costs.
The puppy “lemon law” is designed to be intimidating to anyone who breeds a dog, even if it is only once in a lifetime. It imposes liabilities that are designed to create completely unfair risks to a breeder, while denying the breeder any chance to defend her/himself or to appeal.
The legislation defines puppies that are “unfit for sale.” This means that a puppy or dog is diagnosed with a congenital or hereditary condition that severely affects the health of the animal. It also includes a puppy or dog that has “an injury, defect or illness that was obvious or able to be diagnosed” before the sale, or that “is likely to have been acquired” before the sale.
The term “able to be diagnosed” is particularly troublesome, in that some conditions show no external symptoms but could be diagnosed by advanced laboratory testing. A breeder or his/her veterinarian would have no reason to do this testing if no symptoms are observed, but the breeder would be held liable for it. The phrase “likely to have been acquired” also is troublesome, because there is no proof required that the condition actually had been acquired while in possession of the breeder.
Someone who buys a puppy would automatically be entitled to costs and damages from the breeder if any veterinarian agrees with the buyer that a dog or puppy had such a pre-existing condition, or even the likelihood of one.
The bill also specifies penalties for breeders for things that are entirely beyond the breeder’s control, or things that were done by the buyer to harm the dog or puppy. For example, if the dog or puppy dies within 15 days for any reason except an accident or injury after the sale, the breeder is liable. Thus, the breeder would be liable if someone exposes the animal to extremes of heat or cold, works it too hard such as by hunting or as a sled dog, or exposes it to toxins or poisons.
The breeder also would be liable if he or she did everything right, such as vaccinating a puppy correctly against distemper or parvovirus. A certain percentage of vaccinations don’t “take” and a properly vaccinated dog does not acquire the desired immunity. One common cause is that antibodies from its mother’s milk remain in a puppy’s body, thus blocking the effect of the vaccine.
Breeders would be liable for genetic problems until the puppy reaches one year of age, even though genetic problems could not be diagnosed at the time of the sale. Some breeds are prone to genetic problems. While breeders working with those breeds strive diligently to eliminate those genetic problems, the reality of the situation is that there is no way for a breeder to prevent them from occurring on occasion because of the complexities of genetics, and the absence of workable science to point to this possibility in a particular mating.
A single litter has the potential to destroy a highly conscientious breeder, because genetics is far from an exact science. For example, hip dysplasia is generally transmitted through recessive traits and can skip several generations. This means that even assuring that both parents and all four grandparents have hip x-rays certified as excellent, there still is a realistic possibility that several puppies in a litter can be born with hip dysplasia. The breeder can do everything right and still be subjected to a $10,000 fine, 90 days in jail and permanent loss of the right to breed dogs if two or more dogs from that litter are diagnosed with hip dysplasia. Veterinary science simply doesn’t exist to give breeders the ability to predict or prevent this.
It’s not simply a matter of refunding money or replacing a puppy or dog, which almost all reputable breeders do now. The legislation subjects breeders to huge penalties as well. For the first violation, the breeder is liable for a forfeiture of up to $3,000, plus up to twice the price paid for the puppy or dog. The breeder is given no way to prove her/his innocence, and there is no appeal. Aside from its devastating impact on honest and conscientious breeders, this provision is a clear denial of the constitutional right of equal protection and due process under the law.
A second offense after one year has passed carries a $5,000 fine and possible imprisonment of up to 30 days, and a second offense within the first year carries a $10,000 fine and 90 days in jail. The breeder would not be able to defend him/herself against these allegations. A simple complaint containing a veterinarian’s statement would be proof of guilt.
The goal of this legislation is clear: No one will raise purebred puppies in Wisconsin if this measure is passed into law. That is just what the animal rights groups are seeking. They want to ban all private ownership of animals.
