Allert all indiana breeders

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by 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.

Commercial breeders hire lobbyists to spread propaganda, and misinformation. At one time I believed that it would be OK for animal rights groups and the commercial breeder to fight it out, but this was until I realized some extreme animal rights group are against any breeding, and as I said before, the small home breeder has no one watching their back. So you have extreme animal rights groups who would like to end all breeding and the commercial pet industry who would also like to put the home breeder out of business. Both money-backed organizations are after the home breeder. After all, if there were no home breeders, the pet industry could charge whatever they wanted for pets. That why I'm always suspicious when someone is screaming about the fact that this or that bill will hurt the home breeder, this is a very common technique used by the commercial breeder lobby. So this time I wanted to read the bill for myself and see if what they were saying about it was true, that why I wanted to talk about specific points in the bill. The commercial breeder's lobby always seems to spout three things, "We don't have a problem", and when that doesn't work anymore, "There are already laws in place," and of course, let's not forget, "This bill will effect the home breeder." This bill will have serious repercussions on the commercial breeder, not the home breeder.


I think it's great that you want to fix the USDA system. However, right now, Indiana wants to fix what it sees as a serious problem, state governments are free to set laws as they see fit, as long as the law at least meets Federal standards. Why should they have to wait for the Federal government to do something about it? Some states are more aware of the special problems that they have and should be able to address the problems in their own state.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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

No, I'd never leave!! I had to be a "guest" for a day, Yorkietalk wouldn't let me post due to some "glitch" in the system. Reminds me of the "glitch" in the USDA system, and I wish we could fix that in a day.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by nancy1999

no, i'd never leave!! I had to be a "guest" for a day, yorkietalk wouldn't let me post due to some "glitch" in the system. Reminds me of the "glitch" in the usda system, and i wish we could fix that in a day. :d

glad you are back!!!!

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by wildcard

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

What I think would be most effective isn't even on the table so it hardly matters. I think breeding should be regulated like most professions that take a certain set of skills and operating without said skills can result in harm. The states' professional licensing boards. Then the guidelines for breeding dogs would be governed by experts in breeding dogs rather than farming and agriculture.

I've posted this before but I have nothing but total respect for responsible breeders. It takes a lot of hard work to be one (as I'm sure you know) and I think that given the harm that does result from irresponsible breeders, it makes sense to assure that those who are breeding have the knowledge and the follow through to do so properly. The people who are best able to determine what those guidelines should be are breeders who are deemed experts among other breeders.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Commercial breeders hire lobbyists to spread propaganda, and misinformation. At one time I believed that it would be OK for animal rights groups and the commercial breeder to fight it out, but this was until I realized some extreme animal rights group are against any breeding, and as I said before, the small home breeder has no one watching their back. So you have extreme animal rights groups who would like to end all breeding and the commercial pet industry who would also like to put the home breeder out of business. Both money-backed organizations are after the home breeder. After all, if there were no home breeders, the pet industry could charge whatever they wanted for pets. That why I'm always suspicious when someone is screaming about the fact that this or that bill will hurt the home breeder, this is a very common technique used by the commercial breeder lobby. So this time I wanted to read the bill for myself and see if what they were saying about it was true, that why I wanted to talk about specific points in the bill. The commercial breeder's lobby always seems to spout three things, "We don't have a problem", and when that doesn't work anymore, "There are already laws in place," and of course, let's not forget, "This bill will effect the home breeder." This bill will have serious repercussions on the commercial breeder, not the home breeder.

When you mentioned the extreme groups vs. commercial breeder lobbies, I had to dig around a little to see what you meant. While I did find that HSUS is very active nationwide in promoting these type bills, I could find no mention of any commercial breeders groups. I'm not saying they don't exist but, if they do, could you post some info on them? You make it seem like a conspiracy to do away with the home breeder so, as a home breeder, I would like to know of any such efforts. Thanks in advance for any info. More to the point of the Indiana bill, I see it not so much as a squeeze play on the home breeder but as an end-around of due process. If you will notice, House Bill 1468 originated in the Courts and Criminal Code Committee, not the Agriculture Committee. It begins by addressing parolee conduct then, in a real stretch of procedural logic, magically turns into a breeder restriction bill in the middle section before returning to its opening purpose (parolee conduct) and then some mish-mash of parolee conduct vis a vis animal cruelty at the end. How is this reasonable, logical or practical? Who got to the Parole Board, the extreme animal rights groups or the commercial breeders' lobby? As I said before, this bill is just a mess. It's beyond me how this bill got this far considering its origin and content. It seems like due process is the real victim here, more so than any type of breeder. It is stated that this bill is "A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure." Does that sound like anything that we've been discussing here?

[crystalsmom]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

It should be for ANYONE that is cruel and inhumane to their dogs.

I agree

[Nancy1999]

I don't really want this about which specific group is for the law and which specific group is against it. Just because a group you like or dislike is for or against a law doesn't make it necessarily good or bad. Just to make it clear, I do not personally believe at all, that the HSUS wants to hurt the home breeder. I think they are very much interested in responsible breeding. If you wish to sit back and think the commercial pet breeding industry is doing nothing to stop these laws, that your prerogative. Businesses spend a great deal of time and money on how to make more money. That's there job. I haven't read what any group has said about the law, only Yorkietalk's group.

I'm not a lawyer; I haven't read that many laws before, and I don't know why they write them the way the do. I think the issue of parole was so that a person convicted of certain crimes and on parole could not work with animals. There is also a problem that's been on the news a lot lately, and that concerns an abuser who kills the family pet if the wife won't return. This part might address something like that.

(l) As a condition of parole, the parole board may prohibit a parolee from owning, harboring, or training an animal, and, if the parole board prohibits a parolee from having direct or indirect contact with an individual, the parole board may also prohibit the parolee from having direct or indirect contact with any animal belonging to the individual.


So, in other words, if you have a restraining order out on someone who is on parole, the parole board may also prohibit that person from having contact with your animals. Also, it doesn't say that they have to prohibit, it says that they may. This give the court the power to do what they see fit, in indiviual cases.

As I stated before, only the parts of the law written in bold type are new, and this was the only part in the "parole" section written in bold type. While reading the Bill it makes more sense if you understand which parts are being amended. They just want to amend the law they already have. Most of the law is written in regular type and that has been on the books for a while.

[livingdustmops]

I agree with you Nancy as I think you have to read the following (it doesn't copy over exactly how it shows on the bill) but some of this was already there and they are just amending this bill. I am guessing that they are trying to push this through so it can go into affect by June/July 2009. I believe they first started with the commercial breeder, then the pet dealer (home breeder) and then rescue organizations. Many of the bills failed in the past because they did not separate these 3 groups and address them separately.

First Regular Session 116th General Assembly (2009)


PRINTING CODE. Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type, and deletions will appear in this style type.
Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION that adds a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution.
Conflict reconciliation: Text in a statute in this style type or this style type reconciles conflicts between statutes enacted by the 2008 Regular Session of the General Assembly.


HOUSE BILL No. 1468

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I don't really want this about which specific group is for the law and which specific group is against it. Just because a group you like or dislike is for or against a law doesn't make it necessarily good or bad. Just to make it clear, I do not personally believe at all, that the HSUS wants to hurt the home breeder. I think they are very much interested in responsible breeding. If you wish to sit back and think the commercial pet breeding industry is doing nothing to stop these laws, that your prerogative. Businesses spend a great deal of time and money on how to make more money. That's there job. I haven't read what any group has said about the law, only Yorkietalk's group.

I don't want to make it about who's doing what either. You brought up that there are organized lobbyists for commercial breeders trying to influence these bills. Also, I'm not 'sitting back' thinking anything. I replied that I had only seen things about the HSUS lobbying for these bills and asked you for more info on any commercial breeder lobbyists. I couldn't find any and you still haven't posted any. For a critical perspective of the HSUS, however, here are a few links....Humane Society of the United States 7 Things You Didn't Know About HSUS The Death of Hope at HSUS : Nathan J Winograd I also think the rationale for the Courts and Criminal Code Committee writing such an extensive breeder bill ( (l) As a condition of parole, the parole board may prohibit a parolee from owning, harboring, or training an animal, and, if the parole board prohibits a parolee from having direct or indirect contact with an individual, the parole board may also prohibit the parolee from having direct or indirect contact with any animal belonging to the individual.) isn't very convincing. The rest of the bill, that which is in bold type, goes far beyond the Courts and Criminal Code Committee's purview. I see this as legislative sleight-of-hand. Ill-conceived laws are seldom effective and are likely to be challenged in the courts and this bill is a good example of bad legislation. Also, being in opposition to this bill doesn't mean I'm opposed to shutting down puppy mills. I think we all agree on that issue. It just means that I'm opposed to this bill. I can only hope that my state does a better job if they decide to tackle the issue.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

I don't want to make it about who's doing what either. You brought up that there are organized lobbyists for commercial breeders trying to influence these bills. Also, I'm not 'sitting back' thinking anything. I replied that I had only seen things about the HSUS lobbying for these bills and asked you for more info on any commercial breeder lobbyists. I couldn't find any and you still haven't posted any. For a critical perspective of the HSUS, however, here are a few links....Humane Society of the United States 7 Things You Didn't Know About HSUS The Death of Hope at HSUS : Nathan J Winograd I also think the rationale for the Courts and Criminal Code Committee writing such an extensive breeder bill ( (l) As a condition of parole, the parole board may prohibit a parolee from owning, harboring, or training an animal, and, if the parole board prohibits a parolee from having direct or indirect contact with an individual, the parole board may also prohibit the parolee from having direct or indirect contact with any animal belonging to the individual.) isn't very convincing. The rest of the bill, that which is in bold type, goes far beyond the Courts and Criminal Code Committee's purview. I see this as legislative sleight-of-hand. Ill-conceived laws are seldom effective and are likely to be challenged in the courts and this bill is a good example of bad legislation. Also, being in opposition to this bill doesn't mean I'm opposed to shutting down puppy mills. I think we all agree on that issue. It just means that I'm opposed to this bill. I can only hope that my state does a better job if they decide to tackle the issue.

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.

[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

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Doodlebop

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

I haven't read the link you offered yet, I will, but where did I say "this wasn't being solicited as a puppy mill bill but as a breeding restriction bill? " I mean please quote the post where I said that. I'm really not even sure what that means. I can't believe I said that. Honestly, I'm not here to argue with you breeders, I just wanted to make sure the bill said, what people were rumoring it to say. I doesn't, in my opinion. Furthermore, I don't think I said what you think I said either, so show me my exact quotes. I don't really care about the name of the bill or why it was drafted, or who is behind it, I care about what it will do.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Commercial breeders hire lobbyists to spread propaganda, and misinformation. At one time I believed that it would be OK for animal rights groups and the commercial breeder to fight it out, but this was until I realized some extreme animal rights group are against any breeding, and as I said before, the small home breeder has no one watching their back. So you have extreme animal rights groups who would like to end all breeding and the commercial pet industry who would also like to put the home breeder out of business. Both money-backed organizations are after the home breeder. After all, if there were no home breeders, the pet industry could charge whatever they wanted for pets. That why I'm always suspicious when someone is screaming about the fact that this or that bill will hurt the home breeder, this is a very common technique used by the commercial breeder lobby. So this time I wanted to read the bill for myself and see if what they were saying about it was true, that why I wanted to talk about specific points in the bill. The commercial breeder's lobby always seems to spout three things, "We don't have a problem", and when that doesn't work anymore, "There are already laws in place," and of course, let's not forget, "This bill will effect the home breeder." This bill will have serious repercussions on the commercial breeder, not the home breeder.


I think it's great that you want to fix the USDA system. However, right now, Indiana wants to fix what it sees as a serious problem, state governments are free to set laws as they see fit, as long as the law at least meets Federal standards. Why should they have to wait for the Federal government to do something about it? Some states are more aware of the special problems that they have and should be able to address the problems in their own state.

The origin of this bill in Indiana is this. A representative and his wife purchased a dog from a bad breeder and it died. Now I know this representative and he is an intelligent man. Had they done a little homework-- and we all know it is not hard to find information about the horrors of mills- before buying the dog we would not be here now. The other incident involved a dog that was found frozen in someone's yard. To my knowledge that was not a breeder's dog. At some point the director of the HSUS in Indiana was brought in for her opinion (she is a young lady fresh from law school in Colorado and to my knowledge does not have much dog related experience). That is why this bill is so similar to that being proposed in over 30 other states this session.

I am not aware of any lobbying organization representing commercial breeders in Indiana. I thought I heard that Farm Bureau might be involved, and a dog club lobbyist, but I have not heard of any other lobbyists working to oppose this bill.

[Doodlebop]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Because sharks can disguise themselves as minnows. I don't think the bill has any specific name, except House Bill 1468, but here's the synopsis:

Synopsis: Animal cruelty and commercial dog breeders. Authorizes the court, as a condition of bail or parole, or the parole board, as a condition of parole, to prohibit a person from owning, harboring, or training an animal, and, if the person is prohibited from having direct or indirect contact with an individual, from having direct or indirect contact with any animal belonging to the individual. Establishes commercial dog breeder regulations including: (1) requiring commercial dog breeders to register with the state board of animal health; and (2) establishing standards for premises where dogs are kept and conditions in which dogs are kept. Requires commercial dog breeders to refund the purchase price of a dog sold by the breeder to a purchaser under certain circumstances. Requires pet dealers to maintain certain records Provides that a veterinarian or registered veterinary technician may report a suspected incident of animal cruelty under the law concerning offenses relating to animals to a law enforcement officer. Provides that a person neglects an animal if the person fails to provide reasonable medical care for an animal's injury or illness. Broadens the definition of torturing an animal by administering poison by applying the definition to all vertebrate animals. (Current law applies only to dogs or cats.) Makes abandoning or neglecting an animal a Class A misdemeanor, and enhances the penalty to a Class D felony if the person has a prior conviction. Makes it killing a domestic animal, a Class A misdemeanor, for a person to knowingly or intentionally kill a domestic animal without the consent of the owner of the domestic animal. Makes the offense a Class D felony if the person knew or reasonably should have known the domestic animal was located on real property that was owned by: (1) the owner of the domestic animal; or (2) a person who keeps domestic animals on the real property for the purpose of breeding, boarding, or training domestic animals. House Bill 1468

Then it goes about defining the terms of Commercial breeder and Pet Dealer. Maybe the number of dogs a person can sell a year is too low, 6, before a person is defined as a Pet Dealer, but remember the requirement is only that you keep the name and address of the people you sell or buy the puppies, and also the vet records. Why would this be difficult?

Here is where you were saying the bill didn't have any specific name, and it is cleary being solicited as a puppy mill bill, even on the website of the lady sponsering the bill, and even on the HSUS website, the effect on all breeders is down played to one little line..

House votes overwhelmingly to advance Rep. Lawson's
bill to combat animal cruelty, ban puppy mills

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Doodlebop

Here is where you were saying the bill didn't have any specific name, and it is cleary being solicited as a puppy mill bill, even on the website of the lady sponsering the bill, and even on the HSUS website, the effect on all breeders is down played to one little line..

House votes overwhelmingly to advance Rep. Lawson's
bill to combat animal cruelty, ban puppy mills

Wow, I don't know how you read that in what I wrote, I disagree, I never said "that the bill wasn't being solicited as a puppy mill bill but as a breeding restriction bill," as you claim I did in post 161. I don't think it is a breeding restriction bill, so I would never write that.

This new quote, you have given you can see I said " I don't think the bill has any specific name, except House Bill 1468, but here's the synopsis":

Synopsis is a different word than the solicited. It means outline.


The "Synopsis" is taken word for word from the actual bill, so it's no surprise that the lady sponsoring the bill and the HSUS website use the same words.