Allert all indiana breeders

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

This bill may not have a 'name', but the sponsor has said the intent was to stop puppy mills. It's not a matter of difficulty, Nancy. The records are kept anyway. There are many differences between a home breeder and a commercial operation that this bill doesn't recognize and address. Why do I want someone telling me what kind of kennel I must have, along with dog runs and such? I don't have any kennels. My dogs live with me and the closest thing I have to a kennel are X-pens for the puppies and small travel crates for taking them to the vet. As for runs, they have a safe back yard to romp in as much as they like. Under this bill, would someone like me be made to invest in a bunch of things that would never get used? All in all, this bill, to me, is poorly thought out and really lacks focus. 'If' a new law is needed, it certainly isn't this one.

I don't understand, do you sell more than 10 litters of dogs a year?

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

The lemon puppy law only applies to Commercial breeders, not Pet Dealers. Pet dealers are not required to follow any vet protocol, but only have vet records available, if requested. Breeders who sell 5 or fewer dogs a year don't even have to have vet records available or save the names and addresses of customers.

I'm no lawyer but I think that any item sold must be fit for the purpose intended. This would seem to include puppies, I would think. As for the vet records, why couldn't anyone just say they had sold less than 6 pups and forget about records altogether? While that may not wash with a large scale breeder, there would be many that are over the limit of 5 that would just say they weren't. Again, just another example of this bill not being thought through. From the enforcement aspect alone, this bill would be a nightmare.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I don't understand, do you sell more than 10 litters of dogs a year?

No...and this bill has nothing to do with me personally as I live in Mississippi. I am interested in these bills as they seem to be epidemic these days. Please don't assume too much about me just because I have an interest in them.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

No...and this bill has nothing to do with me personally as I live in Mississippi. I am interested in these bills as they seem to be epidemic these days. Please don't assume too much about me just because I have an interest in them.

I'm sorry I wasn't trying to assume anything about you, but you were addressing so many of the things that were just associated with the commercial breeder, not the small home breeder.

Under this bill, would someone like me be made to invest in a bunch of things that would never get used?

Saying this, and that you don't want to be told what types of kennels to use, made me think you thought this bill would apply to the home breeder.

We often have laws that are based on volume of sales. Once you sell so much or employ so many people you are classified in a different category. For example, the small business owner has different requirement for safety than a large business owner. For many people dog breeding is a business, and they face higher requirements because it's probably believed that the home breeder is already doing more than those minimum requirement anyway. I would certainly hope so.

[Woogie Man]

You're right in that some of the things I addressed would apply to, according to the bill, the 'commercial breeder'. Did you notice that the warranty of pups only applies to the commercial breeder, too? That's silly on the face of it. Would a breeder in Indiana have no obligation to warrant the health of a pup unless they fit the 'commercial breeder' designation? If so, that would be a HUGE loophole. If you think that,of course, the health guarantee should carry over to the 'pet dealer', then why wouldn't you think the kennel requirements wouldn't also, since they're both specifically addressed only under the 'commercial breeder' heading. This bill, to me, is just a mess. BTW, the AKC is against this bill, too. Make of that what you will but they refer to it as a 'breeder restriction bill', not a puppy mill bill. Here's the link...American Kennel Club - UPDATE: Indiana Breeders' Restrictions Bill Passes House of Representatives

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

You're right in that some of the things I addressed would apply to, according to the bill, the 'commercial breeder'. Did you notice that the warranty of pups only applies to the commercial breeder, too? That's silly on the face of it. Would a breeder in Indiana have no obligation to warrant the health of a pup unless they fit the 'commercial breeder' designation? If so, that would be a HUGE loophole. If you think that,of course, the health guarantee should carry over to the 'pet dealer', then why wouldn't you think the kennel requirements wouldn't also, since they're both specifically addressed only under the 'commercial breeder' heading. This bill, to me, is just a mess. BTW, the AKC is against this bill, too. Make of that what you will but they refer to it as a 'breeder restriction bill', not a puppy mill bill. Here's the link...American Kennel Club - UPDATE: Indiana Breeders' Restrictions Bill Passes House of Representatives

Lol, yeah I noted that in post 134 among others I don't see it as a loophole, I think the person buying from a small breeder has to be careful, and get some kind of contract. I'm not surprised the AKC is against the bill, many commercial breeders are members of the AKC, they have powerful lobbies, is the AKC ever for any state bill? I stated earlier and I believe it with all my heart that the small breeder doesn't have an organization that is truly looking out for their best interests. I think many organizations act like they do, but they are really promoting the commercial breeders interests.

[Woogie Man]

I went back and read the text and found the warranty and kennel requirements kind of at odds with common sense. Of course, you would think that a 'pet dealer' would have at least the same obligation as the 'commercial breeder' when it comes to guaranteeing the pup's health so why not the same obligation with kennels and runs. If that's not the case, do we have a situation where the puppy buyer would have more protection from a commercial breeder rather than a small breeder? Imagine that (buy with confidence....buy from a puppymill ). You said it yourself that the buyer would have to be careful and get a contract if buying from a small breeder. I'm sure the scenario I laid out is not what you meant but don't you see that this just illustrates the need for, at least, clarity?

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

I went back and read the text and found the warranty and kennel requirements kind of at odds with common sense. Of course, you would think that a 'pet dealer' would have at least the same obligation as the 'commercial breeder' when it comes to guaranteeing the pup's health so why not the same obligation with kennels and runs. If that's not the case, do we have a situation where the puppy buyer would have more protection from a commercial breeder rather than a small breeder? Imagine that (buy with confidence....buy from a puppymill ). You said it yourself that the buyer would have to be careful and get a contract if buying from a small breeder. I'm sure the scenario I laid out is not what you meant but don't you see that this just illustrates the need for, at least, clarity?

That's why the Pet Dealer has to keep records, if a pet owner buys a dog that was sold with a genetic defect, at least people could learn if this pet dealer was producing the dog, or if she purchased the dog from a commercial breeder, that's why this record keeping is important. I imagine lots of small breeders would run scared if a lemon law were introduced that affected them. Most good breeders do this anyway, but we all know that there are lots of small breeders who don't. I think this might help the commercial dealer as well as the small breeder to recognize that health testing before breeding is important. I think a buyer should always get a contract. If I buy a $30.00 appliance I get a warranty, people spend hundreds of dollars on pets, and should get some kind of warranty. If nothing else, the puppy lemon law would make the commercial breeder understand that health testing is in his best interest, the fewer dogs he produces with genetic defects the more money he'll make.

[Nancy1999]

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:

. . . 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.

[Doodlebop]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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:



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.

They are saying that a lot of your puppy mills, are USDA certified, so why not start there, since there is an enforcement issue.

Then in your second comment, Pet Dealers are required to keep the name and address of where they got the puppy,, Even you are already classifying Puppy Dealers as brokers.. Remember they are people offering more than five puppies per year.. And who is going to enforce the name and address issue..

Who and where is this money going to come from? When the new Indiana law uses the fines they collect? How would it be different..than the USDA? If laws are passes with poor thinking and no foresight, and not even a way to finance, then what is the sense in doing it, if you are not going to do it right..

We have went over and over, how this will affect all breeders in Indiana, those selling or offering for sale more than five puppies a year, and those have 10 litters of puppies a year, that are sold for show and pet purposes, being labeled COMMERCIAL BREEDER, and classed in the same class as the low lifes mistreating and selling over 1000 puppies a year, to anyone with 225 dollars...

This bill is ill thought and needs to be rewritten..

[Nancy1999]

Doodlebop;2505136: They are saying that a lot of your puppy mills, are USDA certified, so why not start there, since there is an enforcement issue.

We already start there, and for reasons I gave in my previous post, I don't believe the USDA is doing a very good job.

Then in your second comment, Pet Dealers are required to keep the name and address of where they got the puppy,, Even you are already classifying Puppy Dealers as brokers.. Remember they are people offering more than five puppies per year.. And who is going to enforce the name and address issue..

Puppy Dealers may be brokers or breeders, but the breeder isn't buying a puppy from a puppy mill and selling it as his own. With records available, consumers would be able to check this out.

Who and where is this money going to come from? When the new Indiana law uses the fines they collect? How would it be different..than the USDA? If laws are passes with poor thinking and no foresight, and not even a way to finance, then what is the sense in doing it, if you are not going to do it right..

I don't know who the money is coming from, that would be a question I would ask the lawmakers.

We have went over and over, how this will affect all breeders in Indiana, those selling or offering for sale more than five puppies a year, and those have 10 litters of puppies a year, that are sold for show and pet purposes, being labeled COMMERCIAL BREEDER, and classed in the same class as the low lifes mistreating and selling over 1000 puppies a year, to anyone with 225 dollars...

If you are selling over 10 litters a year, I think it's reasonable to suggest that you are breeding as a commercial breeder. Ten litters a year is a lot of puppies. For some of you there will be no number that you think is sufficient, but I don't think most home breeders are breeding 10 litters a year, and if they are, they will have to ensure the dogs are properly cared for.

This bill is ill thought and needs to be rewritten..

My only hope is that the true home breeder gets involved in the bill, and doesn't automatically believe some of the information that is put out by commercial breeders, who are disguising themselves as one of you.

[wildcard]

Who are these commercial breeders who are disguising themselves as hobby breeders and exerting their influence over true hobby breeders? I am really curious about that... mostly because I always got the same impression about supporters of pet limit laws, etc.-- that they were being influenced by one or two large organizations via the use of propaganda. It would be funny to learn we are all just pawns in a battle between two monoliths.

Personally, I would much prefer to fix what appears to be an underfunded system-- the USDA inspection system-- which apparently needs work, than to create a whole new system. I don't build a new house every time mine needs repairs.

[Nikki+2]

The USDA is the Department of Agriculture. How that is related to breeding puppies is a mystery to me. They can't do the job and they should never have been the agency doing the job in the first place. There job is related to farming and ranching, NOT puppies.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

The USDA is the Department of Agriculture. How that is related to breeding puppies is a mystery to me. They can't do the job and they should never have been the agency doing the job in the first place. There job is related to farming and ranching, NOT puppies.

What federal agency do you think would be better suited to administer the Animal Welfare Act and the related regulations?

[yorkiekist]

Nancy1999, why does it say you are a guest? Hope you are not leaving us!!!!!