It's good and bad. It's good for the breeder that there is nohealth check required, but not nessisarily good for thebuyer. If the breeder has high quality, healthy animals thenit's a win-win situation. The breeder doesn't have to gothrough the hassle of health checks and the buyer doesn't have to paythe health check fees.
But if the breeder sells sickstock, what can be done about it. The buyer could possibly bestuck with sick animals...., the breeder gets money, the buyer gets asick animal. It's an interesting issue. Only oneside is happy.
I think their still should behealth checks. I never sell a sick animal, and usually neverhave to worry bout it either, cause it's rare for any of my critters tobe sick, but there are some breeders that only care about the dollarline and could care less about the health of their animals as long asthey can sell them. Granted in the long run I think you make more moneyif you have healthy, high quality stock.
They make it harder for therest of us, but in a way it makes our stock more valuable. Goingthrough health checks is a way to increase your reputation by havinghealthy animals. So in a way the mandatory health checks ofmost airlines is an even better win/win situationl, because the breedergains a higher reputation and more business, and the buyer gets ahealthy, most likely high quality animal.
That's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
