[Doodlebop]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

You say, "The rest of the bill, that which is in bold type, goes far beyond the Courts and Criminal Code Committee's purview." I'm not sure what that means. They want to make certain things regarding animals and those who works with them illegal, so wouldn't the bill be best in the criminal code? Maybe this means it will have some teeth, instead of the darn $25.00 fines. Not sure about this, but when things are included in the criminal code and not just any business or agriculture code, both police and sheriffs departments get involved, and it is taken more seriously.


When a policeman finds a person selling drugs, he doesn't just write him a citation, and say, next time I come back, I want to make sure you're not selling drugs. He can arrest the individual, and in fact, it's his duty to do so, because it's in the criminal code as being illegal. This is what happens with the USDA, they are giving multiple warnings and are asked to fix the problem. They may not even be inspected for another year to see if the problem was fixed. After repeated warnings, they a small fine. This was enough to get some breeders to comply, but it wasn't enough to get other breeders to treat the dogs humanely.

Nancy earlier in this thread you had stated that the bill wasn't being solicited as a puppy mill bill but as a breeding restriction bill,,

now read this link, and tell if you can say that Puppy Mills & Animal Neglect | The Humane Society of the United States