from another list...it was NOT me who wrote the letters, etc... but permission is granted to crosspost this...
I received a message on another list that a State Rep. in Ohio is working on a proposal and was receiving input from the dog world prior to formerly proposing a new law. This activity was inspired by a "constituent" who bought a puppy which then developed hip dysplasia and other problems. The breeder offered to take the dog back but the owner refused, assuming the dog would be euthanized. The owner proceeded to spend a significant amount of money in vet bills and wanted the breeder to help pay them. The law in the works is supposed to give "recourse" to such an individual by requiring breeders to give refunds up to the purchase price of the dog, in a broad and vague range of cases. This perked my attention, so I called the office of the Rep drafting the law and had a very good and LONG discussion with a very well informed aide. My concerns revolved around what a breeder can realistically be expected to be able to control. My personal opinion - which is not humbly given in this case - there is a BIG difference between what is responsible and ethical within our clubs, and what the government should be sticking it's nose into. My biggest issue is that the law could require a refund if a dog is found to have inherited a genetic defect. (allergies? mild HD?) Any wise buyer could have an essentially healthy dog, keep the dog, and still get a refund. Just the threat of being sued and labeled a "lemon breeder" is too much. Language of law can be very tricky and in our case, it could be almost impossible to stay within the law if it's too vaguely. Once a law is written, intent is irrelevant. (example: Many are considered "extremists" when they say the US Constitution should be interpreted by the intent of the authors rather than according to day's environment, thus re-writing it.) So I emailed the article I wrote of our interview with Dr. Padgett and gave them his phone number. Whaddaya know? They actually called and talked with him. The following is the message I received after this conversation: >Dale, >I wanted to let you know that I just got off the phone with Dr. >Padgett. He was very helpful, informative, and responsive to >the questions that I had. After speaking with him and reading >your article, I feel that I have a much better understanding of >what we're dealing with in terms of dog breeding and its >relation to this legislation. We are now in a much better position >to make changes to this legislation that will protect dogs and >consumers, and not penalize breeders for things over which >they have no control. This has always been the goal of this >legislation. >Thanks again, >Sara Hall >Aide to Representative Kenneth A. Carano >65th House District >77 South High Street, 11th Floor >Columbus, Ohio 43215 She will be sending me the law as it is proposed. Of course it will then be amended and may never happen. I like most of it and hope it passes with good language. You can read more about this law and preview a draft of it at this link: http://www.canismajor.com/orgs/ovdo/oh_lemon.html ========================================================= "Magic Commands": to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL to start it up gain click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance. Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 2002 by its original author.
