Allert all indiana breeders

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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

I have no idea. But the bill as proposed won't speed anything up-- in fact, I can see it slowing things down because of the adminstrative issues involved. Any puppy mill bust is going to have to be citizen complaint driven and investigated, under current laws or this bill. It certainly won't change that.

I actually represent many southern Indiana counties and towns and I did an informal survey of their Sheriffs and police chiefs. They have their hands full with meth and molestations and violent crimes, etc. They will not have time to turn into inspectors of dog breeding facilities. So yet one more overbroad, ill written, unenforced law in Indiana. Where the problems exist, current laws are sufficient- although I agree the penalties could be more severe.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by wildcard

I have no idea. But the bill as proposed won't speed anything up-- in fact, I can see it slowing things down because of the adminstrative issues involved. Any puppy mill bust is going to have to be citizen complaint driven and investigated, under current laws or this bill. It certainly won't change that.

I actually represent many southern Indiana counties and towns and I did an informal survey of their Sheriffs and police chiefs. They have their hands full with meth and molestations and violent crimes, etc. They will not have time to turn into inspectors of dog breeding facilities. So yet one more overbroad, ill written, unenforced law in Indiana. Where the problems exist, current laws are sufficient- although I agree the penalties could be more severe.

Yikes- I meant investigated by law enforcement, not citizen investigated! Very poorly written.. Sorry

[Wylie's Mom]

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.

If we already have the right laws in place regarding cruelty, then why aren't they working? Is it funding? Are the laws not specific enough? Too many loopholes?

Why are these laws not working? Because in my humble opinion, they are hardly working at all....despite the fact that we're seeing more busts.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

If we already have the right laws in place regarding cruelty, then why aren't they working? Is it funding? Are the laws not specific enough? Too many loopholes?

Why are these laws not working? Because in my humble opinion, they are hardly working at all....despite the fact that we're seeing more busts.

I want to be shown cases in which law enforcement attempted a mill bust in Indiana that did not work because our law was not good enough. Let's make sure what we have really is broke-- or is it just not being used?? I disagree with creating laws because of public perception-- and that is the lawyer in me, not the dog breeder.

Again, this law does not provide for any better enforcement opportunities other than the current citizen driven complaint format. Do you really think people who breed dogs in deplorable conditions are going to stop just because a law says so? Or that they will participate in a voluntary registration process? Those that are already neglecting their animals are not going to straighten up just because a new law is passed. Their conduct is already illegal. They are already scofflaws...

[joldham]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

Right on!!! The laws shouldnt be about the numbers of dogs/litters, it should be on the humane treatment of dogs only.

[joldham]

Originally Posted by Doodlebop

Chapter 7. Pet Dealers
Sec. 1. A pet dealer must maintain a log containing the:
(1) name;
(2) address;
(3) city; and
(4) state;
of the breeder and broker, if applicable, that provided each puppy sold by the pet dealer. The pet dealer must retain the log for at least two (2) years.
Sec. 2. A pet dealer must maintain veterinary records of every animal sold by the pet dealer. The pet dealer must retain the veterinary records of every animal sold or offered for sale by the
pet dealer for at least two (2) years.
Sec. 3. A pet dealer shall make the breeder log described in section 1 of this chapter available to law enforcement officials.
Sec. 4. A pet dealer shall make the veterinary records described in section 2 of this chapter available to purchasers or prospective purchasers

If you sell 5 puppies a year you are considered a "Pet Dealer"

Scenario: I have a family labrador, I want my family to experience a litter of puppies. I breeder her, sell her puppies for 100 dollars each. Since I do not have AKC papers, I did not keep any information. I am now a criminal. I have unknowingly broken the law. I can face Charges!!

How is this reasonable?

Since this Bill was snuck in under the table, there was not a lot of discussion from all points of views.

I read you think the Lemon Law is a good idea...
If ALL consumers were honest, there would not be a problem with the lemon law. Consumers can be liars too!! How is the breeder going to protect themselves against lies if the law is on their side?

Scenario:

I sell a dog to a young couple with an 8 year and a 5 year old. The puppy is dropped on its head, and immediately goes into seizures. The mother rushes the puppy to the vet, It is hooked up to IV's, tests are started, then the puppy dies. The consumer does not reveal the fact the puppy was dropped, relays to the vet that the puppy was recently purchased, and really hasn't been doing well, and now this, but refuses to do an autopsy. The vet writes diagnosis congenital defect... Not Only would I be forced to give them their money back, I would be FORCED to offer them another puppy, and pay their vet bills up to the purchase price of the puppy. So if I sold the puppy for 1000 dollars, I would be out 2000 dollars, and I may have to send another puppy to possibly endure the same demise!!

How is this reasonable?

How many times do you think this scenario or ones like it has to happen before even the best of breeders, say IT is NOT worth it??

Limited to 30 dogs?? I thought the bill was about cruel and inhumane treatment of animals? Shouldn't the conditions be examined, the number of help, and the size Buildings, all be taken into consideration before a number is given. If I go into a firehouse, there is a maximum capacity posted on the wall. That number was pulled out of thin air, limiting an amount, on what someone thought sounded like enough!!

I personally think that it is more than enough, but if someone running a awesome dog operation, where there are tons of help, school kids coming in and loving the dogs, the facilities clean , What is the problem. I am tired of small and large activists groups telling us what is politically correct, and how to think!!

I couldn't have said it better!!!

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by wildcard

I want to be shown cases in which law enforcement attempted a mill bust in Indiana that did not work because our law was not good enough. Let's make sure what we have really is broke-- or is it just not being used?? I disagree with creating laws because of public perception-- and that is the lawyer in me, not the dog breeder.

Again, this law does not provide for any better enforcement opportunities other than the current citizen driven complaint format. Do you really think people who breed dogs in deplorable conditions are going to stop just because a law says so? Or that they will participate in a voluntary registration process? Those that are already neglecting their animals are not going to straighten up just because a new law is passed. Their conduct is already illegal. They are already scofflaws...

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. But I think my question still is (and not just for Indiana), if the laws in place are already "enough", then why is Mill cruelty rampant? If the law works, then why aren't we hearing of 10 mills a week being busted? If we have laws in place, whether for 1 dog or 1000, then what's falling through the cracks?

[yoursotino]

Well said I dont have problems with stopping inhuman treatment of dogs. i just dont want someone telling me how many puppies I can have. they can come to my house anytime they want my records are all up to date. The only thing I dont have is vet records but I could have them in 15 minutes if they are open. I dont care to keep records. But when you buy a car, stove, Tv they dont give you your money back if there is a problem they fix it or replace it. so where does the state of Indiana have the right to tell me what my guarantee should be. That is my discission to make. If someone does not like what my guarantee says they dont have to purchase a puppy from me. I think we all want the same thing we want them to punish the people who are bad to animals no matter what kind it is.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. But I think my question still is (and not just for Indiana), if the laws in place are already "enough", then why is Mill cruelty rampant? If the law works, then why aren't we hearing of 10 mills a week being busted? If we have laws in place, whether for 1 dog or 1000, then what's falling through the cracks?

Why do you think Indiana has so many mills that 10 a week could be busted? I travel the southern half of this state at least twice a week, and either I am blind or they are well hidden secrets, so where is the information coming from that we have a plethora of mills here? I really would like that information. And if someobe knows of people breeding dogs in deplorable conditions in my state, I hope they are ratting them out, whether it is one litter or 20.

Dogs are always going to be second to humans in the eyes of law enforcement. Unless you are going to substantially increase the budgets of police agencies and prosecutors, the priority will be crimes against humans, not dogs. If our agencies had better staffing and more funds, they could broaden their scope of protection to more species. But that means more taxes of course, and elected officials who raise taxes do not get reelected here.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by wildcard

Why do you think Indiana has so many mills that 10 a week could be busted?

LOL...I specifically said in my post...NON-Indiana.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

LOL...I specifically said in my post...NON-Indiana.

Whoops!

That is a big part of the problem. This legislation is being introduced in multiple states as sort of a one size fits all solution.

Unfortunately most lawmakers just like to make more laws. From the viewpoint of someone who then has to try to understand them, analyze them, and apply them, it is often disappointing how they are written. It would make more sense to identify the particular problem in a state, see how pervasive it is, brainstorm possible solutions, sit down and see how they would affect more than just the target and then choose the most effective but least invasive solution, and narrowly draft the law so it is effective but does no unintended harm. Sometimes this happens. When I was on a committee to discuss dog issues in our county, the local humane society director wanted a limits/licensing law. Upon talking to the Sheriff it became obvious that the only complaints he was receiving were wandering dogs and barking complaints so we created a good leash law and broadened the noise ordinance already in effect. The problem was identified, and a law was constructed to address the problems but not hurt those people that were not creating the problems.

Unfortunately the situation at the state level usually consists of special interest groups pushing their agenda without thought to the ramifications and/or whether the problem in the state is being adequately addressed.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by wildcard

The problem was identified, and a law was constructed to address the problems but not hurt those people that were not creating the problems.

Your whole post was great...but you really captured the bottom line here. This is what we all want, and I truly wish we could get there. The last thing I think any of us want is to hurt the breeders who truly care about their dogs and who are breeding for the right reasons.



[btw, to everyone in the thread, just wanted to say thanks for not letting this thread devolve into being about something other than the bill itself]

[wildcard]

Since the bill addresses some pretty conplex issues, my request has been that before letting the horse out of the barn and enact something potentially harmful to otherwise law abiding citizens, that this was a topic appropriate to what is referred to as "summer study.". In a summer study representatives from various groups combine with legislators to try to hammer out something everyone can live with. It would give us all time to work through a problem identification/brainstorming formula. The whole amendment procedure was done ina hurried, sloppy way, even the bill's author admitted on the house floor that there were changes the committee meant to incorporate but they did not have time. This is a perfect issue for a summer study IMO.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wildcard

Since the bill addresses some pretty conplex issues, my request has been that before letting the horse out of the barn and enact something potentially harmful to otherwise law abiding citizens, that this was a topic appropriate to what is referred to as "summer study.". In a summer study representatives from various groups combine with legislators to try to hammer out something everyone can live with. It would give us all time to work through a problem identification/brainstorming formula. The whole amendment procedure was done ina hurried, sloppy way, even the bill's author admitted on the house floor that there were changes the committee meant to incorporate but they did not have time. This is a perfect issue for a summer study IMO.

I guess I'm missing something because it looks like a great bill to me. I can understand why commercial breeders would be upset by it, but not the home breeder.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I guess I'm missing something because it looks like a great bill to me. I can understand why commercial breeders would be upset by it, but not the home breeder.

I think the previous posts, both mine and others, are pretty clear about the problems in the bill so I won't re-state them. You have to think about how the bill will work or not work in practice to understand its consequences and why it will be ineffective. It also helps to understand that the supporters of this bill (not just ordinary people who like it in theory, but the people who drafted it and have hired lobbyists to push it) are incrementalists. This is a foot in the door.