[Doodlebop]

Originally Posted by wildcard

I have been involved with this bill since I first received word that the committee was considering licensing amendments. I have actually read the bill, unlike the apparent majority of the representatives that voted to support it (I watched the debate/vote and if the questions that were asked are any indication, the askers had not read it). I am also an attorney in Indiana who spends a lot of time in our code book. There is no requirement for either a complaint or other form of probable cause prior to be required to supply a "pet dealer's" records, as described in the statute, to law enforcement officers. To be honest, I don't think that section would survive a constitutional attack, but I'd rather not be the test case.

I am not against laws that proscribe actual harmful activities, in fact I helped write our county's leash law. I am in favor of increased punishment for neglect and cruelty. I am against criminalizing and regulating breeding practices unless the activity of doing it results in cruelty or neglect to the animals involved. I disagree that back to back breedings are unhealthy for example, based on various reproductive health seminars I have attended. That is another area this bill addresses, not allowing for more than one litter per bitch per year. Much more recent advice by repro specialists is to do back to back breedings combined with early retirement and spay before the uterus becomes more prone to infections.

Thanks for clarifying...