[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wildcard

I live in Indiana, and I could very easily sell more than 5 dogs in a year and be a "pet dealer" allowing law enforcement to view my records without probable cause that a crime has been committed or even a citizen complaint. Do I really think that my local sheriff's deputies are going to ask to do that? No. But then why have it in the bill? As I explained before, I am a lawyer, and I have a problem with enacting bills that do very little good and fail to solve problems. I do not agree with making laws for the sake of making laws without first seeing if enforcing current laws will cure the problem. So far, no one has been able to provide me with an instance where an Indiana law enforcement officer or prosecutor wanted to "bust a mill" but could not because our current law would not allow for it. So why new laws? They still need to be enforced, they will not magically cure the purported mill situation just by their very existance. If what we have now is not enforced, how is this better? I think those are good enough reason to want this bill killed.

I disagree with legislation that controls animal breeding practices. My legislators do not know what the current reproductive practices are. They do not attend genetics seminars, breeding program seminars, and whelping seminars. They don't have the knowledge to legislate these things and they have not bothered to educate themselves prior to writing this bill. Dog breeding in and of itself is not a crime. You and I may not always agree about why or how someone breeds dogs, but if it is not a situation that results in cruelty or neglect, it may be ethically wrong, but that is a far cry from it being criminal.

I agree with legislation that deals with actual neglect and cruelty. Those laws protect ALL pets, whether 1 or 100. Neglect and cruelty is criminal conduct and should be part of the criminal code. For example, hoarders would not be covered by this bill if they do not breed, regardless of whether their dogs are kept in horrible, nasty conditions (and if law enforcement wants to use our current laws to prosecute them they can).

I think my posts have been very clear. I don't have to be personally affected by a bill (although I could easily qualify as a "pet dealer") in order to oppose it, just as many people are supportive of the bill who will not be personally affected by it. So the argument, well, you aren't a commercial breeder so why do you care is a pretty poor one.

The records are the name and address of who you sold the pets to. Why are you against this? I'm getting more suspicious with your posts. You say you are a lawyer, but I'm beginning to believe that you are a lawyer who is lobbying for commercial breeders, not the home breeder.