Peter Schorsch
Florida lawmakers are currently considering bills (SB 1830, HB 1481) known collectively as MADSA legislation, or Make America’s Dogs Safe Again.
These proposals aim to enhance accountability and transparency among Florida dog breeders by establishing minimum standards for humane and healthy environments for dogs.
However, it has faced strong opposition from the American Kennel Club (AKC), which argues that the bills are “extreme anti-breeder measures.” Proponents of the legislation say this characterization is misleading, emphasizing that the bills specifically target those who breed dogs for sale or exchange and do not affect responsible breeders who already comply with high standards.
“The irony here is that we actually used the AKC website as a reference when crafting this bill. We sought to base our legislation on established guidelines and best practices to protect both dogs and consumers. This support for high standards serves as a cornerstone of our efforts to ensure a better future for dogs in Florida,” Rep. Meg Weinberger, the House sponsor, wrote in an open letter.
Critics describe the bills as overreaching regulations, but supporters maintain that they promote essential safeguards, including breeder registration, inspections and clear care protocols.
“Just as we regulate daycare centers and nursing homes to ensure proper treatment, it’s our moral responsibility to ensure that animals bred for sale receive the care they deserve,” Weinberger wrote.
Concerns about privacy regarding a proposed public database for dog breeders have also emerged. However, advocates assert that this registry would enhance transparency, allowing consumers to identify reputable breeders, deter unethical practices, and build trust within the breeding community.
HB 1481 is awaiting a hearing in the House Industries & Professional Activities Subcommittee. SB 1830 is waiting to be heard in the Senate Agriculture Committee.
11 comments
Susan B Thibodeaux
April 9, 2025 at 10:52 pm
It is disingenuous to compare small hobby breeders who show and compete with their dogs having an occasional litter of puppies in their home to a daycare or a nursing home. This bill is egregious in its requirements. There are many things wrong with this bill and enacting it will cause harm to both Florida hobby breeders and the dogs themselves as well as economic harm to many Florida communities which host dog events to include dog shows, obedience and agility trials, field trials and hunting tests and many more. It requires the owners of even just ONE unspayed female at six months old to register with the state as a breeder. This flies against current veterinary recommendations and universities’ research which now state it is best for dogs to be physically mature prior to spaying and neutering. The bill calls for breeding facilities to meet USDA standards and since it defines breeders as anyone with an unspayed female, it will affect all dog owners who show and hobby breeders to include 4H children, AKC Juniors, and dog owners who just enjoy showing their dogs. Commercial volume breeders that are licensed by the USDA comply with those austere kennel requirements of cages and pens and flooring – hobby breeders, multi pet owners and dog show exhibitors whose dogs lay on the sofa and sleep in the bed do not. We don’t have facilities made of impermeable substances that can be hosed and sprayed with disinfectant because our dogs live in our homes. Our puppies are born in our bedrooms so we can watch over them those first crucial weeks before their eyes open. The language of this bill assumes everyone with unaltered female dogs is a commercial breeder – the proposed rules would force hobby breeders to build a kennel and move them out of their home and into an environment not nearly as enriching or comfortable as they currently have. It also calls for inspections – so we would be forced to give up our 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures because we had a litter of puppies and allow strangers to tramp through our homes and bedrooms to inspect our “kennel.” This bill targets the good hobby breeders who do not contribute to any problems, who microchip and have contracts that demand dogs be returned should the buyer ever not be able to keep the dog (I’ve taken back dogs as old as 15 when owners got sick or died to ensure they didn’t end up in a shelter) and the bill will do nothing to stop the mixed breeds and pit bull mixes that make up almost 100% of the dogs in Florida shelters. It is over imposing on hobby breeders who do not make a living from our dogs but generally spend far more on our dogs than any income from our occasional litters. It doesn’t stop the rescues who import dogs from overseas (according to the CDC more than one million annually are brought into the USA – many into Florida) due to the lack of ‘adoptable’ dogs (people don’t want pit bull mixes).
Finally, it will destroy dog shows in Florida as it drives people away from having a female dog to show due to the onerous and overreaching requirements. Dog shows in Florida bring millions of dollars of economic impact to the various communities across the state. People travel to the shows – many from outside the state – and spend money on hotels, restaurants, entry fees, shopping and frequently bring their families in addition to their dogs so they can enjoy the beaches and theme parks. This bill is a blatant attempt to stop the regular person from having a litter of puppies – it won’t stop high volume commercial breeders who are already licensed by the USDA and it won’t stop irresponsible owners who allow their dogs to run loose and don’t care for them properly. So yes, the AKC and people like myself who enjoy showing dogs and occasionally having a litter strongly oppose this bill.
Beth Taylor
April 10, 2025 at 2:57 am
Very well said Susan
Andrea Dunkle
April 10, 2025 at 6:49 am
Well said! Thank you Susan. I cannot stress enough how unreasonable it is to have anyone with one intact female over 6 months of age be defined as a breeder and subject to inspection. These are homes, not businesses.
Adrienne Freyer
April 10, 2025 at 1:47 am
I completely agree with Susan B T. Talk about government overreach, this is extreme & unnecessary. Previous attempts to legislate hobby breeders and people who show dogs have usually been initiated by well meaning people who do care deeply about animals. While I applaud your concerns, this is not the way to accomplish your goal.
Reach out to the American Kennel Club for statistics on better legislation. They have an entire department dedicated to working with local & state governments to improve relations & help tweak legislation.
Please reach out to several local kennel clubs. Attend one of their meeting or events. Meet the people and their dogs before trying to introduce legislation aimed against them. We love our dogs. Most of us in the sport of dogs work hard to provide the best possible care, food & veterinary services. We each sacrifice our own personal wants to ensure our animals are our priority.
Please attend a dog show! See the license plates in the parking areas. So many from out of state, plus the numbers from Florida. The amount of money people spend, especially in the off season, helps many small communities. Last weekend the 4 days of shows in Elkton, FL was surely a boast to the local economy. Gas, restaurants , hotel’s & grocery stores to name a few.
Royal Canin is one of the largest dog shows in the country. It’s held in Orlando every December. You should ask them the amount of revenue generated from that show. Ocala is home to one of the premier outdoor dog shows venues on the east coast. This legislation will hurt your own constituents.
Please work with us, not against your constituents.
Jennifer B
April 10, 2025 at 7:46 am
Well said Susan
juie karson
April 10, 2025 at 8:05 am
very well said Susan. I couldn’t agree more. totally disagree with this bill. I believe it will cause more harm than good.! Good breeders are being hurt because of the bad. Why doesn’t law enforcement or better yet Animal control handle these bad breeders on a case to case basis.
juie karson
April 10, 2025 at 8:06 am
I couldn’t agree more. totally disagree with this bill. I believe it will cause more harm than good.! Good breeders are being hurt because of the bad. Why doesn’t law enforcement or better yet Animal control handle these bad breeders on a case to case basis.
Sharon Sherwood
April 10, 2025 at 9:13 am
This bill will do nothing except harm those who already take excellent care of their animals. Substandard breeders will not suddenly become good. We know from other areas that have enacted similar laws, what it DOES is cause them to go further under the radar, even as far as neglecting basic veterinary care for things like vaccines, for fear of being turned in.
In 2023, those of us that are active in the sport, brings over 2 MILLION in economic impact to a community that hosts an AKC dog event in just ONE WEEKEND! If this drives people away, it will affect a great many FL communities.
Those who crafted this don’t understand the basics of breeding healthy dogs. We don’t consider breeding a girl until they have acquired all their recommended health clearances, and that cannot happen until they are two years of age. Should a girl fail a clearance, she’ll never be bred, and would be spayed at the appropriate time. It’s physically detrimental to spay/neuter dogs before they are fully mature – with many, many studies showing increased incidents of cancer, orthopedic disease, incontinence, and more. This legislation is unwise for a great many reasons.
Bettina
April 10, 2025 at 12:21 pm
Amen Susan & Sharon! You are both 💯 correct!!! This proposed bill punishes those that are responsible & take care of their dogs, while doing nothing to address the real problem of underground/backyard breeders & irresponsible pet owners!
Caroline Coile
April 10, 2025 at 2:10 pm
Effect on tourism:
Florida dog clubs sponsor more than 1000 events annually in Florida. Many of these events bring in over a million dollars to the local economy. According to the American Kennel Club, a typical show in Florida brings about $2.15 M into that local economy.
Effect on Citizens’ Rights:
According to the bill, anyone with an unspayed female dog over 6 months of age is a “breeder” and therefore subject to unwarranted surprise home inspections (no definition given for what would justify a search), and for their dogs to be seized (again, no definition of what would justify seizure), thus amounting to an illegal search and seizure. From the bill:
• “A breeding dog is any unspayed female over the age of 6 months.” Overwhelming scientific evidence now supports that spaying female puppies is detrimental to their health, increasing rates of cancers, joint and behavior problems, and shortening life span. Early spaying increases urinary incontinence, a reason some people relinquish their dogs. This bill would encourage more, not fewer, sickly and relinquished dogs. A recent meta-analysis has even shown that the one health benefit we thought spaying gave—lower rates of breast cancer—was based on a single faulty study in the 1960s, and never confirmed since. Spaying is not without risk, and a significant number of dogs die from the procedure. This elective abdominal surgery also entails considerable discomfort to the dog. Did you know that spaying and neutering without a justified health reason is illegal and considered an act of cruelty in some European countries? This bill would force responsible people to put their dogs through an unnecessary surgery that will increase their chance of disease and early death…that’s just wrong. Will older dogs be grandfathered in? Would I now have to get my two intact (and unbred) 12-year-old girls spayed just to make sure they won’t have puppies now? (They won’t, because it’s not that hard to keep them separated when in season—that’s what responsible dog owners do). But according to this bill, if I don’t allow unwanted surgery on my dogs, I will receive $500 (and up) fines and be labeled guilty of a misdemeanor or felony for each intact female. In what world does caring for a dog properly make somebody a felon?
• “Some owners may be exempt if they prove they don’t intend to breed their intact female.” Dog owners should not have to prove themselves not guilty until proven innocent. And “some” needs to be defined. Exactly how would these “some” dog owners “prove” they didn’t intend to breed? You can’t pass a bill that applies to “some” owners and not to others without an exact definition, nor can you postpone that definition until after it passes.
• “Breeders must allow their facilities (homes) to be inspected upon demand.” Convicted felons are not required to allow warrantless home inspections. Why do dog “breeders”—again, defined as anyone with an intact female over 6 months old—have fewer rights? When did owning an intact female dog make my home vulnerable to surprise searches by strangers? This allows strangers to come barging in my home in the middle of the night, for no reason. What will these inspectors be looking for? This needs to be exactly specified. Exactly what training will these “inspectors” have? As written, anyone with a vendetta can accuse a person of the “crime” of harboring an intact female, and then be part of the inspection team. You cannot allow untrained people to act as inspectors. Do they know the difference in temperature requirements from one breed to another, for example? Do they realize the veterinary reasons a puppy might be kept in a certain manner? Training inspectors is going to add additional costs incurred by this bill.
• “Facilities must meet federal regulations.” Federal regulations include many requirements that cannot be met within the home; for example, they require that that all surfaces must be non-porous. That would mean no bedding, no upholstered furniture, and would make it impossible to raise a litter in the home—the best place for socialization. They also require air turnover at a rate higher than that most homes can provide. Very few hobby breeders could build a separate kennel building, as would be required—nor would they want to. Our dogs are our family.
• “Breeders’ information will be published on a public website.” Providing an address book for radical animal activists to target breeders and for thieves to steal puppies through home invasions or burglaries is incredibly dangerous. Again, dog breeders are not criminals! The only other group of people I know of with such a requirement are convicted pedophiles.
• “Dogs can be seized, without compensation, if inspectors—who can be “any person”—conclude the facility is not in compliance. Owners are responsible for all fees to maintain the dogs at an outside facility.” Dogs can be taken based on unwarranted charges, by anyone, with unknown motivations, based on inspections by untrained individuals; that is condoning what should be illegal search and seizure. This has happened, though, with owners then charged boarding fees that can reach tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, while awaiting trial. The fees stand even if the owner is found not guilty. Recently some laws have been passed that would charge the county to pay for these fees when the owner is found not guilty—that’s a hefty price for any municipality. Again, this bill will result in more, not fewer, dogs in shelters.
While we all want dogs to live free from cruelty and neglect, this bill will not achieve that, and is based on a false assumption that breeding dogs is associated with cruelty. In fact, the vast majorities of breeders who would be affected by this bill—those who would pay the fee—would be the ones who are already responsible, caring dog owners. Many of these people breed occasionally to produce healthy, purposefully-bred dogs in an effort to preserve a pure bred dog breed or produce a dog that can perform a job. This bill would make this impossible for the typical breeder. A person can have one neutered dog and keep it in bad conditions, or 10 intact ones and keep them in glorious conditions. Laws already exist to prevent animal neglect and cruelty. It is far more cost-effective to enforce existing laws.
The bill further makes the false assumption that purposefully-bred and raised dogs are somehow less healthy and less socialized that random-bred stray dogs: “The registration of individuals or corporations that breed dogs for profit is necessary to prevent the cruel treatment of dogs, to prevent bred dogs that end up in shelters from being euthanized at a financial cost to local and state governments, and to prevent the emotional suffering of individuals and families that experience the unethical and bad business practices of some dog breeders.” An extremely low percentage of dogs in shelters were purposefully bred. The vast majority come from negligent owners who will not register as “breeders.” In fact, imposing a $500 fine on intact dogs will simply cause many “casual” dog owners to deny ownership if the dog is discovered, as they would prefer it be impounded rather than pay for it. This law will cause more, not fewer, dogs in shelters. As for health, Florida already has a puppy lemon law. Assuming that a purposefully-bred puppy is more prone to illness or abandonment than a randomly-bred shelter dog is illogical. Responsible breeders extensively health-test and socialize their parents and puppies, screen homes, and enforce contracts that ensure the return of any dog for the entirety of its life. That’s why the ratio of purebreds to mixes in shelters is low (despite the fantasy breed labels placed on mixes by shelters). This bill will make it so hard to breed well-bred dogs that only poorly bred pit bull mixes will be left. Forcing families to buy poorly bred and raised “rescues” instead of health-tested well-socialized puppies is bad for families who need a particular size, activity level and temperament; and bad for public health due to the danger of dog attacks from unsocialized dogs put for adoption. This bill would encourage more, not fewer, sickly and relinquished dogs.
The bill presents a danger and hardship to responsible breeders, and even endangers the dogs of irresponsible breeders who may try to avoid reporting dogs or litters, and thus avoid needed veterinary care—even life-saving C-sections—lest they be reported.
Note that some of this bill’s “rescue” backers have the largest incomes of any dog selling business in the state. Big Dog Ranch sells their un-health-tested unsocialized purebred puppies for $750 each, and boasts that they have sold 4000 dogs in the past year. In 2022 they had revenue of 13.6 MILLION and held 19.5 MILLION in assets. Eliminating breeders would drive even more sales to them. And none of the requirements in this bill apply to rescues.
I realize that on the face of it this seems like a way to stop poorly kept dogs and overpopulation. We all want that. But overpopulation does not come from well-bred dogs. The breeders who would be affected by these regulations are the ones who are already responsible. All this bill does is put their lives in danger, and their beloved dogs at risk. And who will pay for it? Wouldn’t this money be better spent on enforcing anti-cruelty laws already on the books? I implore you to vote against this draconian bill. It is bad for dogs, it is bad for people, it is bad for tourism, and it is bad for Florida.
Pamela S.
April 11, 2025 at 3:53 am
Make America’s Dogs Great Again? Not with this legislation. This article doesn’t begin to describe the details within this proposed legislation that have alarmed the hundreds of responsible small Florida preservation breeders who have maybe one litter a year, who focus on maintaining the integrity of purebred dogs, already spend thousands on health testing, training, and exhibiting them, who donate their puppies to professional organizations that provide trained service dogs free of charge of to US veterans. Spaying a puppy before they have matured has proven detrimental to their health. Offering a bounty to someone who turns in their neighbor is hardly conducive to harmonious community relations. Requiring someone with a female dog to have USDA-grade facilities that are inspected with a sign posted on their front door is not safe, financially practical or logistically feasible. Having an animal rights group come inspect your home, having to post your name and address on a publicly available database, pay hundreds in fees just to be listed as a breeder, and none of these decisions being made in concert with veterinarians, kennel clubs, or responsible dog breeders- only certain animal rights groups are getting a say in this- these introduced bills benefit somebody, but it’s not the dogs, responsible breeders, or the communities they serve. There are multiple Florida municipalities that already impose legislation, and some of it is very common sense (ie., the dogs are registered with a legitimate kennel club, are used for exhibition in said kennel club, are used for hunting or other legal and recognized sport or competition, etc.). If we really want to “make America’s dogs great again”, we’ll start there, and stop paving the way for commercial and overpriced “rescues,” and reduce the beaurocracy imposed on those who are truly committed to the health and future of purebred, purpose-bred, well bred dogs.