>

I think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.
You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding? >

Sorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business. >

What makes it a business? >

Whatever you have to tell the IRS. >

Many people run a "business" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality >

Whether people do it or not, its illegal. >

But that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them? >

There is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry. >

In the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. 
So, your view is sort of what's happening. >

!delta
That's awesome >

While I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a "jailable" offense?
I agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?
What other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? 
I would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes. >


While I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a "jailable" offense?

Yeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes. >

The problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.
Restricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters. >

The dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. 
Most animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog. >


I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and 
allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a 
license to practice when considered as a business.

This sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.