Allert all indiana breeders

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by wildcard

I sold 5 puppies last year and would be a pet dealer under this act. With no probable cause to believe a crime was committed police officers would be allowed to view my records? I mean, do you want the police reviewing your personal finances etc with no reason to believe you did anything wrong ir illegal? Last time I checked there was nothing criminal or illegal about breeding a litter of dogs.
Sure on its face 10 litters is a lot. But what happens in 2 yrs when the author of the bill wants to amend it to be 5, then 2, then 1? This incremental approach is being taken next door in Illinois as I write this-- they want any breeder with 3 breedable bitches to have indoor outdoor runs??

I don't want to see animals mistreated whether someone has 1 or 100. Stronger penalties for cruelty and mistreatment are appropriate, not more administration. Let's let our local law enforcement investigate crimes, not dog breeders who have done nothing more than breed a single litter.

There is a reason why we hear of mill busts-- it is because the owners were committing the crimes of neglect and cruelty. Enforcement of what we have works if the time is taken to use the laws on the books.

Seems like with all the mills busts going on, the laws we ALREADY have are working. Why do we need more?

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by Doodlebop

There are a lot of ignorant poeple reproducing children, that are to ignorant to raise them.... Do we make a law against it!!

I know some people who fit that description that I'd like to nominate as test dummies!

Originally Posted by Doodlebop

Our society is headed to a sad place, when my pet has insurance, and my neighbors child doesn't.... Let's keep it in perspective..

The topic of insurance is a hot topic here and stricly political...having NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread. That's a road best left untraveled here on YT....

[livingdustmops]

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?

Special Features | Special Features
The USDA – understaffed and ineffective
The commercial pet trade is regulated (though, many would argue, not closely enough) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS). The USDA is responsible for administering the Animal Welfare Act, which requires breeders, brokers and dealers to provide minimal basic care to their nimals. Anyone who breeds pets for the wholesale trade or sells stock to other breeders must obtain Class A licenses, while brokers and dealers are required to obtain Class B licenses. This does not apply to breeders who sell directly to the public.
The majority of these factory farms are concentrated in Pennsylvania and the Midwest – Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma. Missouri, which has more mills than any other state, is by far the worst – a “black hole of despair,”
Under the Animal Welfare Act, breeders must provide nutritious food, clean water and housing that is kept dry and cleaned of waste. They must also provide adequate veterinary care and observe their animals daily. But the regulations still allow for keeping dogs in cages, albeit with “sufficient space to allow each dog and cat to turn about freely, to stand, sit and lie in a comfortable, normal position, and to walk in a normal manner.”
How big is that? The USDA-APHIS has a formula. Each dog must be provided with a space calculated by dividing the mathematical square length of the dog plus six inches by 144. The dog must also be given just six inches of space above his head. So, a dog who is 40 inches long can be given just 14.69 square feet of space (roughly the size of a bathtub).
Are the regulations enforced? Well, the USDA-APHIS is understaffed and, by most accounts, ineffective. According to USDA spokesman Darby Holladay, between 115 and 120 inspectors enforce the Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Protection Act. Holladay added that there are 15,000 licensees and registrants under the Animal Welfare Act alone, but he told Best Friends he couldn’t comment on whether or not he thought the agency was understaffed.
Those 120 inspectors are responsible for monitoring not only thousands of breeders, brokers and dealers, but zoos, circuses and research facilities as well.
The USDA levied more than $1.5 million in fines in 2005-06, and the agency’s general counsel listed scores of complaints on alleged violations of the Animal Welfare Act. If animals are in extreme danger, the USDA works with local agencies to confiscate the animals. Holladay said, “We do that quite often.”
But although commercial breeders who violate the Animal Welfare Act can receive a civil penalty of up to $3,750 per day per violation, a glance at USDA inspection reports shows that some puppy millers have been able to tally up violation after violation, and still keep operating.
“There’s such a lack of enforcement and so much recidivism,” Wilkins said. “They’re not being watched and regulated.” Fry agrees. “If the USDA were to levy those fines, they would have all the resources they need to regulate that industry.”
Take the case of Gary McDuffee in Morrison County, Minnesota. Despite a five-year history of USDA violations, Morrison County commissioners still issued McDuffee a new conditional-use permit for a facility that could hold up to 500 adult dogs plus any number of puppies. Previous violations included cages that were too small, cages that were deteriorating and contained sharp and dangerous materials, failure to clean animals’ enclosures, failure to label shipped animals as live cargo, and use of expired or outdated drugs or medications.
The McDuffee case drew nationwide attention and put the puppy mill issue back in the headlines. Animal welfare advocates, including those with Fry’s organization, plan to appeal the ruling. Best Friends supporters have contributed $20,000 to help with the appeal.
Holladay says the USDA does try to educate its license holders and bring them into compliance. But Fry says some breeders just aren’t getting it. “You’d think after five years of noncompliance,” he said, “they’d realize educating them wasn’t working.”
Not only is the USDA lax in its regulation of commercial breeding operations, but it has actually poured money into them.
The USDA has loaned the Hunte Corporation, a large Missouri-based dealer and the largest wholesaler of puppies sold in pet shops, more than $4 million in recent years for expansion and upgrades. Hunte, which has grown 35 times its original size since 1991, is involved in the transport and sale of animals to 300 pet stores around the world.
Puppy mills and pet stores depend on each other. It’s estimated that 90 to 98 percent of dogs sold by pet stores come from puppy mills, according to a Best Friends study. The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council estimates that 3,700 of the nation’s 11,500 pet stores are selling dogs from puppy mills – about 300,000 to 400,000 puppies per year.
Only half the dogs bred at puppy mills even make it to the pet shops. The other half die from the mills’ squalid conditions, hypothermia, starvation or the horrors of transport.
AKC
The American Kennel Club name alone conjures up images of the crème de la crème of canines proudly prancing around a show ring with their handlers. Surely they all came from the finest of dog lines, their parents pampered and cared for by their loving owners.
Think again.
“The AKC makes between $20 million and $30 million a year off dog registrations,” Fry said. “A large percentage of that is from puppy mills. It’s a cash cow. Without those registrations coming in, they would take a serious loss in income.”
According to the AKC’s 2006 audit report, the AKC made more than $33 million from registration fees, accounting for almost half of the registry’s $72 million in total revenues that year.
Lisa Peterson, AKC’s director of communications, said the AKC does inspect breeders. She said breeders who produce four to six litters a year are randomly selected for inspection. Breeders who produce seven or more litters a year are inspected every 18 months. If they pass two inspections in a row, they get one inspection cycle off and then go back on the rotation. Peterson said the AKC, which has 14 inspectors, conducted about 5,000 inspections last year. “When our inspectors go in to inspect,” Peterson said, “breeders have to meet our standards of care for dogs.”
The AKC has fined and suspended breeders who use their registry who have been convicted for cruelty to animals (the average penalty is 10 years and a $2,000 fine) or who have failed to comply with the AKC’s Care and Conditions Policy, which usually brings a one-year suspension and a $1,000 fine, according to AKC documents.
Yet the AKC has consistently come out against state legislation that would require the most basic care standards, such as Minnesota’s Senate File 121 and House File 1046, as well as Pennsylvania governor Edward Rendell’s efforts to strengthen that state’s dog laws.
“We oppose any legislation that takes away the right of the owner to determine what’s best for their pets,” Peterson said.
Money – and lots of it – keeps puppy mills in business. Breeders, animal brokers, pet stores, veterinarians and even the American Kennel Club (AKC) make big bucks from all those puppies. In 2006, the AKC registered 870,000 individual dogs and 416,000 litters. At $20 per dog and $25 per litter (plus $2 per puppy), that’s well over $30 million.
Many more articles to read:
Special Features | Special Features
Puppy mill awareness
Special Features | Special Features
How you can help:
Special Features | Special Features

[Woogie Man]

FYI, this bill has already passed the House and moves on to the Senate. Here's a quote..Indiana HB 1468 passes house
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 07:00 PM

Lawmakers looked at grim photographs of injured and neglected dogs in Indiana on Thursday before approving legislation aimed at limiting unregulated, large-scale dog breeding operations. Bill sponsor Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, said puppy mills are a problem across the state.... The legislation would add requirements for commercial dog breeders, defined as those with adult dogs that produce 10 or more litters a year. Breeders would be limited to 30 adult dogs that are not spayed and neutered. The bill also requires commercial breeders to provide dogs with sanitary conditions and an hour of exercise a day, and breeders could not hire staff members if they have been convicted of animal cruelty.... The legislation passed the Democrat-controlled House on an 81-14 vote and now moves to the GOP-ruled Senate for consideration. Here's the link..Indiana HB 1468 passes house

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

Wow - your rights! What about my rights not to have to pay for the surplus animals in shelters to be euthanized or taken care of. What about my rights not to have to pay organizations to go after these inhuman breeder. What about the rights of people who bought dogs that they had to pay a small fortune to save the animal because the breeder didn't care. Having been in rescue I paid a small forture in saving Yorkies and making them healthy to place into a forever home. And please why do I have to pay the price for "Hobby" breeders that are just breeding because they love the show world. No one pays for my hobbies. I will ask again, how many of these people are even paying taxes on this business...people selling dog clothes have to, why shouldn't the breeders.

And finally what about the rights of these poor animals that have to suffer in horrible conditions and don't have a voice!

Nobody twisted your arm and MADE you do your hobby. You did not have to pay for the Yorkies YOU decided to rescue. That was YOUR choice to do so. Just as its MY choice to show dogs. Its also MY choice to make donations to my local shelter and MY choice to donate to health research. It was also My CHOICE that I rescued a little blind poodle that was walking up my road. And you can go on and on about our taxes having to pay for unwanted animals, but so what. My taxes also go to paying for every friggin illegal alien brat that is born here. There are many things our taxes go to that I dont agree with.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

OK, I think they would still need probable cause, what makes you think they would not need this? This is something our constitution guarantees, and no state can take this away. Are you sure you are getting you information from valid sources?

I have been involved with this bill since I first received word that the committee was considering licensing amendments. I have actually read the bill, unlike the apparent majority of the representatives that voted to support it (I watched the debate/vote and if the questions that were asked are any indication, the askers had not read it). I am also an attorney in Indiana who spends a lot of time in our code book. There is no requirement for either a complaint or other form of probable cause prior to be required to supply a "pet dealer's" records, as described in the statute, to law enforcement officers. To be honest, I don't think that section would survive a constitutional attack, but I'd rather not be the test case.

I am not against laws that proscribe actual harmful activities, in fact I helped write our county's leash law. I am in favor of increased punishment for neglect and cruelty. I am against criminalizing and regulating breeding practices unless the activity of doing it results in cruelty or neglect to the animals involved. I disagree that back to back breedings are unhealthy for example, based on various reproductive health seminars I have attended. That is another area this bill addresses, not allowing for more than one litter per bitch per year. Much more recent advice by repro specialists is to do back to back breedings combined with early retirement and spay before the uterus becomes more prone to infections.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

FYI, this bill has already passed the House and moves on to the Senate. Here's a quote..Indiana HB 1468 passes house
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 07:00 PM

Lawmakers looked at grim photographs of injured and neglected dogs in Indiana on Thursday before approving legislation aimed at limiting unregulated, large-scale dog breeding operations. Bill sponsor Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, said puppy mills are a problem across the state.... The legislation would add requirements for commercial dog breeders, defined as those with adult dogs that produce 10 or more litters a year. Breeders would be limited to 30 adult dogs that are not spayed and neutered. The bill also requires commercial breeders to provide dogs with sanitary conditions and an hour of exercise a day, and breeders could not hire staff members if they have been convicted of animal cruelty.... The legislation passed the Democrat-controlled House on an 81-14 vote and now moves to the GOP-ruled Senate for consideration. Here's the link..Indiana HB 1468 passes house

This sounds reasonable to me, what's your opinion?

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

This sounds reasonable to me, what's your opinion?

Once limit laws are put in place, those persons who would like to see an end to animal husbandry will go back for lower and lower limit-- this is happening in Illinois right now. We need to focus on actual incidents of neglect-- to 1 dog or 100.

And the press blurb about the law does not include all facets of the law, including the pet dealer provision and the overreaching lemon law.

[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?

You can't have a Puppy mill bust, unless someone is breaking the laws. The conditions could be horrible, but unless it breaking the law, there can be no bust. Each state makes it's own laws regarding this. Indiana felt it minimum requirement for kennels were not strict enough and decided to make some new laws. Pennsylvania passed laws, but this doesn't help Indiana dogs. That's why they need new laws.

[Doodlebop]

Originally Posted by wildcard

I have been involved with this bill since I first received word that the committee was considering licensing amendments. I have actually read the bill, unlike the apparent majority of the representatives that voted to support it (I watched the debate/vote and if the questions that were asked are any indication, the askers had not read it). I am also an attorney in Indiana who spends a lot of time in our code book. There is no requirement for either a complaint or other form of probable cause prior to be required to supply a "pet dealer's" records, as described in the statute, to law enforcement officers. To be honest, I don't think that section would survive a constitutional attack, but I'd rather not be the test case.

I am not against laws that proscribe actual harmful activities, in fact I helped write our county's leash law. I am in favor of increased punishment for neglect and cruelty. I am against criminalizing and regulating breeding practices unless the activity of doing it results in cruelty or neglect to the animals involved. I disagree that back to back breedings are unhealthy for example, based on various reproductive health seminars I have attended. That is another area this bill addresses, not allowing for more than one litter per bitch per year. Much more recent advice by repro specialists is to do back to back breedings combined with early retirement and spay before the uterus becomes more prone to infections.

Thanks for clarifying...

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by wildcard

I have been involved with this bill since I first received word that the committee was considering licensing amendments. I have actually read the bill, unlike the apparent majority of the representatives that voted to support it (I watched the debate/vote and if the questions that were asked are any indication, the askers had not read it). I am also an attorney in Indiana who spends a lot of time in our code book. There is no requirement for either a complaint or other form of probable cause prior to be required to supply a "pet dealer's" records, as described in the statute, to law enforcement officers. To be honest, I don't think that section would survive a constitutional attack, but I'd rather not be the test case.

I am not against laws that proscribe actual harmful activities, in fact I helped write our county's leash law. I am in favor of increased punishment for neglect and cruelty. I am against criminalizing and regulating breeding practices unless the activity of doing it results in cruelty or neglect to the animals involved. I disagree that back to back breedings are unhealthy for example, based on various reproductive health seminars I have attended. That is another area this bill addresses, not allowing for more than one litter per bitch per year. Much more recent advice by repro specialists is to do back to back breedings combined with early retirement and spay before the uterus becomes more prone to infections.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

You can't have a Puppy mill bust, unless someone is breaking the laws. The conditions could be horrible, but unless it breaking the law, there can be no bust. Each state makes it's own laws regarding this. Indiana felt it minimum requirement for kennels were not strict enough and decided to make some new laws. Pennsylvania passed laws, but this doesn't help Indiana dogs. That's why they need new laws.

We have cruelty and neglect laws and I believe there was at least one recent "bust" near Sullivan, IN. That is how Rep. Lawson got her photos for her presentation to the House. If conditions are such that animals are truly suffering from poor care, our current neglect law will protect them.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

This sounds reasonable to me, what's your opinion?

This isn't the whole bill that I posted....only a story about it. I haven't personally read the whole bill. All I have is a general opinion on these types of bills. I would like to see animal cruelty laws more strictly enforced before writing any new laws. You will still see unscrupulous breeders finding ways to circumvent most of these laws so what net good are they? If it's pet over-population these laws are aiming at, they will do no good at all. That was recently discussed in the General Discussion forum..http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/gen...must-read.html and I expressed my opinion about that subject there. If it's animal cruelty these laws are targeting, then I would say enforce the laws already on the books and provide more than a slap on the wrist for convicted offenders. I have to wonder who is advising these legislators while drafting these laws and if the legislators real motivation isn't to generate revenue. In any case, 2009 seems to be the year for seeing these laws pop up. There must be a nationwide effort by someone to see these laws on the books. As someone else posted, puppy mill busts are on the rise so why not let the cruelty laws already in place do their job? Everyone would like to see an end to needless suffering by animals but do these new laws really address the problems in any new, meaningful way?

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wildcard

We have cruelty and neglect laws and I believe there was at least one recent "bust" near Sullivan, IN. That is how Rep. Lawson got her photos for her presentation to the House. If conditions are such that animals are truly suffering from poor care, our current neglect law will protect them.

How so, how long have these dogs been living this way?

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

This isn't the whole bill that I posted....only a story about it. I haven't personally read the whole bill. All I have is a general opinion on these types of bills. I would like to see animal cruelty laws more strictly enforced before writing any new laws. You will still see unscrupulous breeders finding ways to circumvent most of these laws so what net good are they? If it's pet over-population these laws are aiming at, they will do no good at all. That was recently discussed in the General Discussion forum..http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/gen...must-read.html and I expressed my opinion about that subject there. If it's animal cruelty these laws are targeting, then I would say enforce the laws already on the books and provide more than a slap on the wrist for convicted offenders. I have to wonder who is advising these legislators while drafting these laws and if the legislators real motivation isn't to generate revenue. In any case, 2009 seems to be the year for seeing these laws pop up. There must be a nationwide effort by someone to see these laws on the books. As someone else posted, puppy mill busts are on the rise so why not let the cruelty laws already in place do their job? Everyone would like to see an end to needless suffering by animals but do these new laws really address the problems in any new, meaningful way?

It sounds like many of the breeders would like to see bigger penalties. I would too, and I hope that will be addressed in the law. Much of the laws that are on the books pertain to all livestock, and a dog isn't any different that a chicken or pig. I believe that dogs are different and there should be special laws pertaining to their breeding.

I am surprised that many think because there are so many puppy mill busts; things are going well. This has the opposite affect with me.