Quote:
Originally Posted by yorkiekist   Seems like with all the mills busts going on, the laws we ALREADY have are working. Why do we need more? |
This is one point that I don't think has been covered thoroughly. I think many people believe that the Puppy mill busts, are brought on by the USDA, and they seem to be doing their job bringing down the millers. This is not true though, all the busts I've read about either came about by some freak accident and authorities investigated, or there was an actual group of people doing an undercover investigation. As YT member WalnutHill stated in the USDA breeders thread
http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/bre...er-list-2.html concerning USDA inspectors:
Quote:
|
. . . the inspector has to document all problems, document that they told the breeder ot fix the problems, come back and document that the changes weren't made, write another complaint, impose fines, come back and tell them to change it again, and then etc etc before anything can really be done.
|
This doesn't sound like they are very effective. You also have to remember not all mills have to be registered with the USDA. These state laws would help address this problem. Some of you have noted that millers won't register anyway, however, with the requirement that Pet Dealers will have to provide the name and address of where they purchased the dogs, at least investigators will have some type of "probable cause" in which to do an investigation.
The organizations doing the inspections should not have a conflict of interest when it comes down to closing a mill. If the inspectors are making their money through the businesses that they are inspecting, they are more likely to overlook certain things. It would be like the health department earning its money through restaurant contributions. They might be more likely to overlook some things if closing down a restaurant meant their organization would lose money.