Do you think people should get a paper to be able to breed their dogs?

I wish it was possible. But people would just do it under the radar, and there would really be no way to enforce it. But I really wish we could.
References :

yes, I also think there should be a test on genetics and breed history (of both dogs if you plan on "Making a designer breed"). Just my personal opinion. I think pet shops should also hand out mini tests to sell animals, they should have employees' take tests on the animals they are selling, and each store should have annual exams on the animals they sell. Might make pet owners more aware of the actual responsibilities of owning pets.
References :

Just because a dog has papers does not automatically make it breedable quality
References :

I believe that they should do like in German with German Shepherds, the dog must have titles and be of a certain quality before it can be ALLOWED TO BE BREED.
Like they say, hope springs eternal.
References :

I totally agree with you, hon, even the "lost dog" people don't know how to spell the breed…………. but as long as people are not forced to take any kind of testing, this will continue to be a problem.
References :

I have AKC registered Labradors, and I had them all spayed or neutered because of the whole pet overpopulation thing. I believe people who are trying to buy registered dogs should be screened before allowing the registration to pass, or allowing limited registration so they cannot breed their dogs, if they do not have the resources to take care of 20+ dogs. Unfortunately, it is up to the individual who owns the dogs to decide if they want to breed their dog or not, to whatever they want, and call it what they want. Labradoodle, Shitzu Wow, Peekapoo, Puggle…they are all elaborate names for "mutts."
References :

small dogs don't always find a home. and i think with the new age of designer breeds you'll see more and more of them in shelters. yes large breed dogs are the predominant ones in shelters, but the small dog numbers are growing.

i don't think they need a paper i think they need a brain, education and common sense, and sadly that's not going to happen.
References :

Like someone else had said, I wish it was possible. If it was possible and enforceable, then yes I would say that the local SPCA, or the city should have some licensing in effect for breeding dogs. I also think it should cost a lot for the license so people aren't breeding dogs for the money, but instead the love of doing it.
References :

Erinn, I totally agree with you that I wish breeding could be more limited, both because of the overpopulation - - which i have long seen the results as a shelter volunteer - -and the ignorant breeding of dogs of poor health and temperament (whether intentional by BYBs and puppy mills or by ignorant people not spaying and neutering and letting their dogs run loose and mate randomly)

I don't think that AKC or anyone ought to be setting numbers for how many total labs could be bred (and probably that is not what you meant) , but I wish SOME authority could set quality standards which would have to be met to determine which dogs should be bred. Setting a bar for quality would necessarily limit quantity since most dogs would not reach that standard.

They should not just have to have the kind of registration paper you get from AKC which only says that the parents were of the same breed - - I hear people who think that the fact their dog has "papers" means they SHOULD breed it , when really that is just a pre-requisite in determining breeding, not the final criterion - -and the papers may not even really be true since dishonest breeders can cheat and lie about who are the parents of a litter when they fill out the form.

Personally I really think there should be breed wardens like the major German dog clubs. Dogs should have to be examined and judged based on health testing, how well they conform to the breed standard for appearance and temperament, and if they are a working breed how well they can perform. (In other words not just a beauty contest but how good they are at herding hunting, tracking, protection, obedience, etc.)

They should then only be allowed to be bred if they are judged "fit for breeding" for those that are adequate and don't have disqualifying faults, or "recommended for breeding" for ones that are superior and have qualities it really is recommended should be passed on to improve the breed.

<sigh> It would be very hard to enforce though. Especially in a country like USA with such a strong feeling of individualism - -that can be great in some things, but in something like this you get people saying "i have a right to do anything I want with my dogs. It is my right to breed my un-healthy "chiwawa" and my bad tempered "teacup" "shitzu" and make little "chiwatzus" or whatever new stupid name they come up with.

But I absolutely think puppy mills should be stopped immediately, many of them ought to be closed down on the basis of cruelty and neglect. we should concentrate on making sure officials enforce the laws that exist, as well as on making stricter laws about conditions for all dogs and about transporting large numbers of dogs and puppies.

Good for you for being concerned and putting a lot of thought into this important subject. You sound like a pretty smart and caring 13 year old.
References :

I totally agree - irresponsible breeders cause untold suffering - including poor care of their pets, breeding dogs with genetic health problems, not socialising pups properly, and churning out far too many dogs, adding to overpopulation and leading to more dogs being put down.

I think there should be 2 licences in place for breeding dogs:

1) A "dog breeders" licence.

I think people who want to breed should have to take a course to learn what they are doing, then pass a test to show they have learnt it all.
They should then be subject to an interview and a home check to make sure they have suitable facilities, finances etc to breed responsibly.
ONLY if they meet all the criteria should they be given a licence to breed dogs - and then they should face checks at least once a year to make sure they are still doing it right. (I also think there should be a limit on the number of dogs anyone can breed to stop mills and byb's churning out dogs all the time).

2) A "breeding dog" licence - for the dogs themselves.

I believe it should be against the law to breed any dog under the age of two, above the age of 7, on consecutive seasons etc.
I think all dogs should undergo a thorough vet check to see if their general health is good.
Then have ALL the appropriate tests done for things like hip and elbow dysplasia, PRA, etc.
If the dog is healthy it should then have to prove its temperament, eg using the American temperament test system or KC canine good citizen scheme.
If it is a pedigree breed it should also be judged by a bered expert to ensure it is a good, sound example of the breed. ONLY if the dog is proved to be healthy and sound of temperament should it be licenced to breed. I think it should then be compulsory to neuter any dog which does not pass.
References :
BSc animal management
Dog owner

I agree with the premise, in theory. The problem I see goes back to "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Meaning, that the reputable breeders will be cut down, as folks will not want to mess with the added hassle. The BYB's and Puppymills, however (who don't care)- will continue to breed- so you will have fewer reputable breeders creating healthy dogs, and more crappy dogs being pumped out.

There just is no way for a government to regulate morality.
References :