Great descriptive info on the USDA's invovlement Cindy! :thumbup:

I agree, It should include anyone!!!

To Livingdustmops...

The USDA sure does need some work...

I was just stating puppy millers specifically, because it is being solicited as a Stop puppy mills bill...

The Bill itself has some issues, and as it stands it needs to be heavily modified to be productive...

There are a lot of good points in the Bill, but a lot that are just thrown in there for a hidden agenda.

All animal lovers agree that there is a problem and it needs to be fixed as pertaining to cruelty to animals.

Thanks for the extra information on the USDA, and it seems to support my opinion, that most Puppy Millers are already under minimal supervision, and need to have that supervision maximized..along with enforced penalties...

I have never denied that bad breeders exist in Indiana. What I dispute is the portrayal of Indiana as being covered in them, which is the impression that is coming from various posts.

If the USDA is not effective in administering their own regulations, that is a USDA issue and it needs to be addressed by our federal government.

When an attempt at bringing state law cruelty charges was made against the Grabers, I believe the prosecutor was the one that declined to bring them.

I agree that we need better enforcement of our existing laws. I do not agree that it makes sense to create new laws without some showing that the current laws are being enforced but are falling short.

As a side note, in the first video that was linked to (I can't recall who the poster was) there is footage of a shih tzu. If I am remembering this right, that is the same dog (but in a photo) that Rep. Lawson used as an example of a dog taken from a mill but I thought she said it was more recent than that film would be. She seemed really nervous about her presentation so she might have just made an error. But now I am a little confused about how many mills have been "busted" and when.

I think the second video is from Pennsylvania.

The puppy pipeline video shows footage from the same Odon facility as the first video. The Isleys that are in the first segment of the first puppy pipeline video that are shown as examples of good breeders have sent a letter to the Star editor concerning their opposition to HB 1468 by the way: Hidden agenda attacks responsible dog breeders | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

Actually I didn't see any hidden agenda, but you are right, you should always look out for that. I'm afraid if the bill is watered down, it won't affect the commercial breeder so much, but it will place more restrictions on the home breeder. Remember, these changes will require commercial breeders to spend money, and this means they will have to increase their prices, they would love to put the home breeder out of business, because you are the competition.

One thing that stands out to me is that this bill has the stated intent to stop puppy mills. The requirement for anyone that sells, or offers for sale, more than five puppies to register belies that intent. But just say that this bill passes in its current form. First off, there would have to be a window of time for any breeder, dealer or broker to register. Secondly, how can anyone force compliance unless they know who these people are in the first place? It's likely that those that are running a shady operation simply wouldn't register. So what you are left with are inspectors inspecting mostly 'good' operations once inspections do take place. The typical 'miller' would not have registered and you would still be relying on citizen complaints to get at them. How is that so different from what is in place now? Wouldn't it be simpler (and faster) to clearly define animal neglect/abuse, stiffen penalties for violators and use the USDA list as a starting point in identifying commercial breeders? Or does that make too much sense?

That makes sense to me,, Sounds like a great start...

I think one of the reasons that they might want people who sell 6 or more dogs a year to register as Pet Dealers, is because this enables them to do a little double-checking. Let say a breeder is claiming to only have 9 litters a year, so he would not be required to register as a commercial dealer. He could then just sell to brokers who wouldn't have to register at all; if there was no limit on the number they could sell without registering. You have to think of all the ways the puppy miller could get around the situation when designing legislation. This would be an effective way to double check because the pet dealer also has to say where he purchased the dogs. Some of these names and addresses would be more available than they currently are. This legislation also protects consumers somewhat, because Pet Dealers would be required to provide vet records to prospective customers, and this should be something that is made available to people buying a dog. So you see, even if the commercial dealer didn't register, there would still be a way to find out something about the operation.

I am trying to think what kind of vet records will be required and how that will eventually help the buyer. Would only a shot record given by a veterinarian be the protocal making it so that the breeder could not give their own shots? Or would the protocal be more intensive?

That rationale seems like a real stretch. The stated intent of the bill is to go after puppy mills. Why involve the small breeder? If you're going after sharks, why use a minnow net? This bill should be called what it is, a breeder registration bill, not a puppy mill bill.

Any records concerning the dog you are selling. These records must be kept for two years. I imagine the shot record would be the important one for people buying a puppy. Some breeders will tell people that the vet has checked the dog, and he has no illnesses, it would be great to see that in writing. If the breeder administers her own shots, I imagine that she has a pretty good relationship with a vet and the vet could note shots given by breeder. The law doesn't say anything about this; it just says vet records have to be available. I personally believe it safer for puppies to get the shots from a good breeder, less risk of being around other dogs.

I think the one of the main reasons this might be important is the puppy broker business. Many people pretend to be breeders who are actually brokers. A person goes to someone's home, sees two cute dogs, and a puppy, and thinks the person's a breeder. If the person could see vet records, that could ensure that the breeding dogs were actually raised in this environment and not some puppy mill. Some of you probably think this is silly but the puppy broker business is really big business. If you want to make money with dogs, forget about breeding and become a puppy broker, the only talent you need is lying through your teeth.

LOL!! I bet if it were MANDATORY to make all breeders do ALL of the health tests for each breed on the parents and the puppies, all of them would jump ship!!

Good point. Further, would it be required to follow the vet's protocol and begin shots too early for some breeds, as many vets do now? Would a breeder have to allow 7 in 1 shots? Also, the 15 day warranty is worrisome. As the bill reads, the buyer would only need a statement from their vet saying the puppy was sick or had a genetic defect. A second opinion should be automatic in these cases. While I (or most breeders) would not try to get out of our responsibility, there are some jack-ass vets that I wouldn't trust if they said the sun was up. Many things can happen to a pup that is out of the breeder's control, whether by injury or careless exposure to disease on the part of the new owner.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.


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.

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 :D 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.

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 :eek:). 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.

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..

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.

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.

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?

Nancy 1999
 

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