Posted on 06/09/2007 6:57:50 AM PDT by ReignOfError
Interesting question, and not covered by the article. A local paper like the LA Times or SacBee might have more detail. I would assume that there's some provision for licensed breeders, but that would just be an assumption.
Ouch ... you caught me. I started to make sure I had the right spelling, but there you go. And I left out the word “is” too. Next time i will do better. I promise.
Mine is so upset that yes, if this goes through, she's talking of moving out of state.
You said:
>>>the supply of pets far exceeds the demand, in every city, county and state.
In reference to the supply, my post shows it is animal RIGHTS activists is coming from THEM.
You don’t see the relevance in that?
It is the animal RIGHTS activists that put forth the agenda for sterilizing pets through their HumaneUSA PAC, yet they are the same ones importing animals from other countries to keep their shelters supplied.
Like I said, give a headache, sell an aspirin.
The problem is that this law does include breeders. You have to jump through hoops to prove that you are a breeder, and pay through the nose.
You also have to show your dogs. I do show my dogs, but what if I want to take a break and not show for awhile? No, can’t do it.
I only breed once or twice a year, and that barely makes enough to pay for all the shows I do with my dogs.
If Florida did have this law, I would just give it up.
The only thing this law will do is stop reputable hobby breeders like myself, that have been breeding quality healthy dogs. All that will be left is mutts and puppy mills, because these people won’t follow the law anyway.
Can’t you see? This is the same logic given for all the gun grabbers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.