Allert all indiana breeders

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wildcard

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.

And I read your previous posts, and I don't understand the specific points why you are against it, sure we can talk about really no need for it, and too much government, and the slippery slope argument, and who's behind it, but if you don't believe that the commercial producer's have a huge lobby that are spouting the exact same case, you extremely wrong.

Specific arguments against the bill fell flat. "This will, affect those who produce 5 dogs a year." No it won't.


"Pet dealer" means any person, or the employee of a person, who:
(1) engages in the sale of dogs to the public for profit; or
(2) sells or offers for sale more than five (5) dogs in one (1) year."

So more than 5 dogs means 6 or more dogs. If you sell 6 or more dogs, you have to register as a Pet dealer, and keep records . Big deal.

You're probably thinking, it just one more dog, but the people who gave you this information are exaggerating, they knew the number, but purposely mislead you. People, who really have a case, don't need to exaggerate even by one. That why it's important to check the facts, and if they are incorrect, be suspicious of the person sending the message, do they have an agenda? Is it really the same as yours?

Some of you objected to the Lemon puppy law, and how this would affect you, again another scare tactic. However, this only applies to Commercial Dealers, and that those that produce 10 litters of puppies a year, and some of you call them "serious hobbyist." Come on, lets get serious.




The main thing this bill would do is
(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.

As a pet owner, I realize, that I don't understand all the problems of the home breeder, and I was really hoping this thread would enlighten me to them. However, it just made me believe that breeders don't want any legislation regarding breeding. I've read many of you say,"lets get rid of the puppymills and leave the home breeder alone", this bill is doing that, but it's defining who is a commercial breeder, who is a pet dealer, and who is a home breeder. There is nothing wrong with being labeled a pet dealer, and it just means you would have to keep records, suggesting that authorities will come and raid your home at any time, is a known as scare tactic used by commercial lobbyist to get the home breeder to side with them. They don't care about you, they just want more time so that they can water down, the parts of the bill that affect them. Indiana is big Amish country, and they work closely with big companies that spout this kind of propaganda.

[yoursotino]

You really need to read the bill not it is not a scare tactic. The bill says quote "sell or offers for sale more than five (5) dog in (1) year is a Pet dealer. That mean that if you have a lab or dog that produces 8 puppies for an example you can only sell 5 and that is the way it is written You dont have to be a commercial breeder for this to apply it will apply if you are just breeding one dog.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by yoursotino

You really need to read the bill not it is not a scare tactic. The bill says quote "sell or offers for sale more than five (5) dog in (1) year is a Pet dealer. That mean that if you have a lab or dog that produces 8 puppies for an example you can only sell 5 and that is the way it is written You dont have to be a commercial breeder for this to apply it will apply if you are just breeding one dog.

I read the bill, but my point is that it says more than 5 which means 6. Yes, if you sell 6 puppies a year, you have to register as a pet dealer, and keep records. It doesn't mean you can only sell 5 of the dogs. What do some of you have against keeping records? This tells me that you are not a hobby breeder, because they do keep records. Records are very important to them. Obviously the byb's don't want to be bothered by keeping records.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by yoursotino

You really need to read the bill not it is not a scare tactic. The bill says quote "sell or offers for sale more than five (5) dog in (1) year is a Pet dealer. That mean that if you have a lab or dog that produces 8 puppies for an example you can only sell 5 and that is the way it is written You dont have to be a commercial breeder for this to apply it will apply if you are just breeding one dog.

I believe Nancy has read the bill.

The bill does not say you can "only sell 5" - it says if you sell more than 5, you have to register. I think what you wrote above misrepresents what the bill says.

[yoursotino]

I have all my records for my dogs they are all miro chipped I have DNA on every dog I have including my female that are breeding age. I know every person who has purchased a dog from and talk to them every 4 or 5 months to check on their puppy or dog. I keep every vet visit written down and I keep all the neccessary record for AKC. I am a hoppy breeder and I raise Yorkies my problem I have is tell me I can sell on whole litter of puppies. If you had a litter of 6 what are you going to do with the 6th one. This bill is not about Yorkies it is all breeds. I dont care if I have to have to be a pet dealer but i dont want labeled as one since I am a show breeder my goal is to raise good show puppies. I am very careful who i breed and who too. if it was only about commercial breeder it would not be a problem but it is about me and my friend who do show and breed. Where did you get your puppy from in most cases from a breeder. Would not want to be able to get another one if you desired. The people behind this bill wont NO ONE RAISING DOGS OR CATS I hope I have not offended anyone but I just feel that you are missing the point. I live in INDIANA it effects me not you.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by yoursotino

I have all my records for my dogs they are all miro chipped I have DNA on every dog I have including my female that are breeding age. I know every person who has purchased a dog from and talk to them every 4 or 5 months to check on their puppy or dog. I keep every vet visit written down and I keep all the neccessary record for AKC. I am a hoppy breeder and I raise Yorkies my problem I have is tell me I can sell on whole litter of puppies. If you had a litter of 6 what are you going to do with the 6th one. This bill is not about Yorkies it is all breeds. I dont care if I have to have to be a pet dealer but i dont want labeled as one since I am a show breeder my goal is to raise good show puppies. I am very careful who i breed and who too. if it was only about commercial breeder it would not be a problem but it is about me and my friend who do show and breed. Where did you get your puppy from in most cases from a breeder. Would not want to be able to get another one if you desired. The people behind this bill wont NO ONE RAISING DOGS OR CATS I hope I have not offended anyone but I just feel that you are missing the point. I live in INDIANA it effects me not you.

There is nothing wrong with the term Pet Dealer; I don't see why you are afraid of this label. If you are selling more than 6 dogs a year that seems to be an appropriate name. The law has to define terms, and perhaps you keep adequate records, but many people who sell 6 dogs a year don't, and this is what the law is attempting to fix. Can you think of a better label that wouldn't offend you? Obviously, not everyone selling 6 or more dogs a year is a show breeder.

[Nancy1999]

Here is what a Pet Dealer has to do, again, a Pet Dealer is described as someone who sells 6 or more dogs a year.

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.

This means that the pet dealer has to have the name, address, and city and state, to everyone he sold a puppy to, or where he bought the puppy. This information has to be saved for two years, and made available to law enforcement officers. Now how could law enforcement officers check out anything, if a dealer doesn't even have to give that information? It says nothing about financial records, or how much you sold the dog for. Again people are implying authorities will raid you home and go through you financial records, this is a scare tactic.

The second part says that a pet dealer must retain all veterinary records, for at least two years and this information should be available to the pet buyer, does this sound unreasonable to any of you responsible breeders? A pet buyer should have access to this, many people say they test for various illnesses, but they don't, and this is a way buyers could check it out for themselves.

[wildcard]

I live in Indiana, and I could very easily sell more than 5 dogs in a year and be a "pet dealer" allowing law enforcement to view my records without probable cause that a crime has been committed or even a citizen complaint. Do I really think that my local sheriff's deputies are going to ask to do that? No. But then why have it in the bill? As I explained before, I am a lawyer, and I have a problem with enacting bills that do very little good and fail to solve problems. I do not agree with making laws for the sake of making laws without first seeing if enforcing current laws will cure the problem. So far, no one has been able to provide me with an instance where an Indiana law enforcement officer or prosecutor wanted to "bust a mill" but could not because our current law would not allow for it. So why new laws? They still need to be enforced, they will not magically cure the purported mill situation just by their very existance. If what we have now is not enforced, how is this better? I think those are good enough reason to want this bill killed.

I disagree with legislation that controls animal breeding practices. My legislators do not know what the current reproductive practices are. They do not attend genetics seminars, breeding program seminars, and whelping seminars. They don't have the knowledge to legislate these things and they have not bothered to educate themselves prior to writing this bill. Dog breeding in and of itself is not a crime. You and I may not always agree about why or how someone breeds dogs, but if it is not a situation that results in cruelty or neglect, it may be ethically wrong, but that is a far cry from it being criminal.

I agree with legislation that deals with actual neglect and cruelty. Those laws protect ALL pets, whether 1 or 100. Neglect and cruelty is criminal conduct and should be part of the criminal code. For example, hoarders would not be covered by this bill if they do not breed, regardless of whether their dogs are kept in horrible, nasty conditions (and if law enforcement wants to use our current laws to prosecute them they can).

I think my posts have been very clear. I don't have to be personally affected by a bill (although I could easily qualify as a "pet dealer") in order to oppose it, just as many people are supportive of the bill who will not be personally affected by it. So the argument, well, you aren't a commercial breeder so why do you care is a pretty poor one.

[wildcard]

I am cutting and pasting an interesting article on the effects of legislation like in this vein, in order to comply with YT rules I have redacted the names of organizations responsible for supporting this type of legislation:

Where Do Pets Come From?

Cadie Pruss, Acadia shelties

(this article was published in the Southern Sheltie Directory, Oct. 2008)

It is the age old question parents dread, "where do babies come from?" This question is dreaded not because the answer is, "from loving homes where they are socialized, taught manners, educated, wanted and loved." No, the question is dreaded because of the "other" answer- you know the one- about the birds and bees. Would the answer to the question be any different if we lived in a society where people were not allowed to have their own children until the "unwanted children" of the world were all adopted? No, babies do not "come from" an orphanage, foster care, or adoption centers.

Pets do not "come from shelters" because shelters are not producing pets, they are the orphanage of pet world- the middle place between birth and adoption. When someone exclaims, "get an animal from a shelter"- where did that animal come from? At the moment pets "come from" a few broad categories:
*feral animals having litters;
*pets that belong to an individual unintentionally having a litter;
*pets that belong to an individual intentionally having a litter;
*hobby breeders; and *high volume, for-profit breeding facilities.

XXXXX special interest organizations such as XXXXXXXXXX first cropped up in the 1970's and for the past three decades they have been working to change where pets in the United States come from- with considerable and increasing success. Their primary efforts and tactics are "Legislation--Education--Sterilization". XXXXXXX are well known national organizations who solicit money from private donors, but it is the local and private shelters that have become the front lines of their efforts. The local public and private shelters bear the expense of abandoned pets but the large national organizations received the most donation money. As a result, money is readily available for legislation and education, while the local shelters are taking care of the sterilization expenses.

By the 1980's shelters were spaying and neutering animals prior to adopting them out and reporting decreases in the shelter's euthanasia rates. Spaying and neutering was reported as responsible for reducing the category of *feral animals having litters - and by 2000 the "education" of the general public made spaying and neutering pets the socially moral thing to do. Low cost spay/neuter programs made it affordable for lower income households to also "do the responsible thing" and fewer pets came from the category *pets that belong to an individual unintentionally having a litter. In the last half of this decade, these special interest organizations seem to be working on the
next three categories - *pets that belong to an individual intentionally having a litter; *hobby breeders; and *high volume, for-profit breeding facilities. Of the last three, the first two categories are the most vulnerable to the legislative tactics currently being deployed by these powerful special interest groups and since there is still a demand for pets, the business of high volume,for-profit breeding facilities will most likely be the final answer for American-bred pets.

We now understand that not all shelters are over-flowing with adoptable pets. Some shelters import puppies (which are more adoptable than adults) to stay full. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 300,000 dogs were imported into the US in 2006 by both commercial distributors AND animal shelters. It is true that many parts of rural America still has more animals in need of homes, than homes that can be provided for them. PetSmart®, a large corporate pet supply retail chain, has begun a charity called the Rescue Waggin'® which relocates dogs and puppies from areas of high pet population, to shelters where adoptable dogs are in demand. This valuable relocation service recognizes and addresses the issue that not all areas of the country are experiencing the same pet abandonment rates. Overall, the national dog population has decreased while the national human population has increased.

A significant number of people choose to share their life with another
living creature other than a human, and pets are a multi-billion dollar industry; yet 2007 and 2008 has seen a record number of legislative efforts nationwide relating to pets. Recently proposed, and passed, pet legislation is taking the national conscious to a whole new level, a level where is no longer "un-ethical" to breed fluffy- it is now "illegal". Everyone who wants to live with a pet in their life will be affected and unless we all understand where pets come from, we will just nod our heads in agreement at the political sound-bites these shelters and special interest organizations expound, and we will pay the price when we go to find our next "best friend" or want to experience the joys of raising a litter.

What is at stake? A lot. For the buyer what is at stake is finding well adjusted, properly socialized pets, raised in loving homes and exposed to normal home noises, that are good companions and good additions to a family; at stake is any pet that was raised with a purpose such as hunting dogs who were socialized from birth to sounds, scents, and mothers who themselves were hunting dogs or to livestock guard dogs who were raised with and bonded to livestock, or dogs bred to a written standard of excellence. For families what is at stake is the ability to make the decision to accept the responsibility of raising a litter. For millions of hobby breeders what is at stake is a way of life, a purposes and a passion, and for all Americans, what is at stake is special interest groups dictating what should be legal in this country.

No national event birthed this legislative boom, it has been building over decades beginning with the concept that there is a pet over-population problem and everyone should spay and neuter their pet and Adopt from a Shelter. Some shelters became successful businesses, recruiting volunteers, monetary donations, and people to champion the cause of "ending pet over-population". Over the last 10 years this national campaign of "educate, legislate, sterilize" has been successful at reducing the number of families having litters.. So if the demand for pets is steady at least, and on the rise at best, where will the pets of the future "come from"? Oddly, the resulting laws end up enhancing the high-volume for profit breeding facilities that often get labeled as "puppy mills".

Shelters and special interest groups have discovered how to stay stocked by importing "unwanted dogs" from foreign countries while soliciting donations and lobbying for legal changes. "Puppy mills" makes good targets and thus are good for soliciting donations. Mandatory spay/neuter laws will not affect high-volume for-profit breeding facilities because these businesses will spend the money to buy breeding licenses or kennel licenses, bring the kennel buildings into compliance with the newly mandated housing requirements, hire a
staff Veterinarian, hire staff to "socialize" the puppies.

Recently proposed and passed pet legislation may not eliminate the high volume for-profit breeding facilities, but they will have a big impact on the other sources of pets. Most *hobby breeders are not breeding dogs as a profit making business and therefore are less likely to be able to comply with the newly proposed and pass laws. These laws outline specific building requirements and charge costly fees to purchase "breeding permits". Families that are interested in taking on the responsibility of a litter will have to plan a head and purchase many "breeding permits" before the female is actually old enough to produce a litter. While this will be an option, it will be expensive and time-consuming. The demand for pets in this country has not decreased. Under the newly proposed and passed laws, high volume for-profit breeding facilities will become to the pet industry what Wal-Mart® is to the retail industry- the place everyone loves to hate- but goes to shop anyway. Where do pets of the future come from? Well, most mixed breeds will come from foreign countries, and most pure-breds will come from the "Wal-Mart" of the puppy world- The Hunte Corporation®. Look them up on line, this state of the art, contract-factory farm of the dog world just might be the biggest benefactor of these legislative efforts and just might be where your next pet "comes from."

Sources:

10 Years After: Ten Year Review of Urban Animal Management by Graeme Raine Ten Year Review of Urban Animal Management in Australia

Animal rights from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Animal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Britannica on line

http://www.britannica..com/EBchecked...20Encyclopedia

Long campaign to spay, neuter making its mark Oakland Tribune, Oct. 14, 2006

Long campaign to spay, neuter making its mark | Oakland Tribune | Find Articles at BNET

Pet Overpopulation: The Simple Solution. Education, Legislation, Sterilization! By Laurie Goldstein, 2003

Sterilization Spay-Neuter

Model Statewide Spay/Neuter Programs: New Hampshire

http://www..straypetadvocacy.org/htm...ilization.html

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wildcard

I live in Indiana, and I could very easily sell more than 5 dogs in a year and be a "pet dealer" allowing law enforcement to view my records without probable cause that a crime has been committed or even a citizen complaint. Do I really think that my local sheriff's deputies are going to ask to do that? No. But then why have it in the bill? As I explained before, I am a lawyer, and I have a problem with enacting bills that do very little good and fail to solve problems. I do not agree with making laws for the sake of making laws without first seeing if enforcing current laws will cure the problem. So far, no one has been able to provide me with an instance where an Indiana law enforcement officer or prosecutor wanted to "bust a mill" but could not because our current law would not allow for it. So why new laws? They still need to be enforced, they will not magically cure the purported mill situation just by their very existance. If what we have now is not enforced, how is this better? I think those are good enough reason to want this bill killed.

I disagree with legislation that controls animal breeding practices. My legislators do not know what the current reproductive practices are. They do not attend genetics seminars, breeding program seminars, and whelping seminars. They don't have the knowledge to legislate these things and they have not bothered to educate themselves prior to writing this bill. Dog breeding in and of itself is not a crime. You and I may not always agree about why or how someone breeds dogs, but if it is not a situation that results in cruelty or neglect, it may be ethically wrong, but that is a far cry from it being criminal.

I agree with legislation that deals with actual neglect and cruelty. Those laws protect ALL pets, whether 1 or 100. Neglect and cruelty is criminal conduct and should be part of the criminal code. For example, hoarders would not be covered by this bill if they do not breed, regardless of whether their dogs are kept in horrible, nasty conditions (and if law enforcement wants to use our current laws to prosecute them they can).

I think my posts have been very clear. I don't have to be personally affected by a bill (although I could easily qualify as a "pet dealer") in order to oppose it, just as many people are supportive of the bill who will not be personally affected by it. So the argument, well, you aren't a commercial breeder so why do you care is a pretty poor one.

The records are the name and address of who you sold the pets to. Why are you against this? I'm getting more suspicious with your posts. You say you are a lawyer, but I'm beginning to believe that you are a lawyer who is lobbying for commercial breeders, not the home breeder.

[wildcard]

Just to be clear, my argument is not based on a hypothetical "slippery slope" argument. In Illinois, the initial regulation of breeding dogs involved breeders with more than 8 intact bitches (whether they were bred or not). A kennel license and inspection was required but the housing requirements were not so strict that a hobby breeder could not easily comply. That was later lowered to 6 intact bitches. The current legislation that is proposed involves 3 intact bitches (although I do believe they have discussed keeping the number at 6) but the kicker is that the housing requirements mean that anyone with more than 2 breedable bitches (and the bill says this means any intact bitch over 4 mos of age equals breedable even though it would not allow any breedings until the bitch is 18 mos) would be required to provide indoor/outdoor runs for their dogs of a particular size. Meaning if you had 3 intact bitches, regardless of whether they are actually bred or not, they have to housed in an enclosure where they have at will indoor/outdoor access (your backdoor to your fenced in yard is not good enough even if you are there all day long to let them in and out), and if I am remembering correctly they can't share runs.

Incrementalism is a reality, not something myself and others are conjuring up to scare people. Just ask my mentor who has been breeding papillons for 30 years in a responsible, caring, scientific way-- if the Illinois bill passes she is going to have to either take out a second mortgage to build a kennel or she will have to sell, give away, or spay all but two of her bitches. It is ridiculous. I never, ever want to see that happening in my state.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

The records are the name and address of who you sold the pets to. Why are you against this? I'm getting more suspicious with your posts. You say you are a lawyer, but I'm beginning to believe that you are a lawyer who is lobbying for commercial breeders, not the home breeder.

That kind of comment is absolutely uncalled for. Suspicious of what??? I have been very clear about why I oppose this bill-- for reasons relating to dog breeding and for reasons relating to what constitutes good, enforceable legislation. You are of course entitled to disagree but please do it productively, not by questioning my motivation.

As an FYI, as well as my "day job," I am also a very serious dog owner/exhibitor AND breeder with multiple AKC breed champions, an AKC agility champion, and numerous other obedience and agility titles. I have bred a grand total of 5 litters in about 15 years of showing and competing with dogs.

I think I am actually in a pretty good position, as an Indiana citizen, a lawyer with many years of reading and interpreting the Indiana code, and many years in the dog fancy, to make whatever comments I darn well want to about this bill without someone becoming "suspicious" about why.

It is a good thing I deal with discourse on a daily basis or my panties would be in a wad

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wildcard

Just to be clear, my argument is not based on a hypothetical "slippery slope" argument. In Illinois, the initial regulation of breeding dogs involved breeders with more than 8 intact bitches (whether they were bred or not). A kennel license and inspection was required but the housing requirements were not so strict that a hobby breeder could not easily comply. That was later lowered to 6 intact bitches. The current legislation that is proposed involves 3 intact bitches (although I do believe they have discussed keeping the number at 6) but the kicker is that the housing requirements mean that anyone with more than 2 breedable bitches (and the bill says this means any intact bitch over 4 mos of age equals breedable even though it would not allow any breedings until the bitch is 18 mos) would be required to provide indoor/outdoor runs for their dogs of a particular size. Meaning if you had 3 intact bitches, regardless of whether they are actually bred or not, they have to housed in an enclosure where they have at will indoor/outdoor access (your backdoor to your fenced in yard is not good enough even if you are there all day long to let them in and out), and if I am remembering correctly they can't share runs.

Incrementalism is a reality, not something myself and others are conjuring up to scare people. Just ask my mentor who has been breeding papillons for 30 years in a responsible, caring, scientific way-- if the Illinois bill passes she is going to have to either take out a second mortgage to build a kennel or she will have to sell, give away, or spay all but two of her bitches. It is ridiculous. I never, ever want to see that happening in my state.

First of all, we are not discussing the Illinois law; I haven't read that, so I can't discuss its points. We are talking about the Indiana law. Many of us want to do something about the puppy mill situation, and we would like input from people who are good breeders, but all I see is a lot of misinformation and redirection.

However, your example is exactly what I've been worried about. Perhaps in Illinois good breeders stayed out of the initial drafts of the bill, and just voted, "No" so they left it up to commercial breeder to mull it over and then came up with what they thought was a suitable bill, and it passed, hurting the home breeder, I'm well aware this has happened in other places. It's so easy to mislead the home breeder, and they have no real lobby that protects them, and many are influenced by whatever propaganda the commercial breeder spouts. So my point in the beginning of this thread is to address which part of the bill would hurt the home breeder, and all I got was a lot of BS.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wildcard

That kind of comment is absolutely uncalled for. Suspicious of what??? I have been very clear about why I oppose this bill-- for reasons relating to dog breeding and for reasons relating to what constitutes good, enforceable legislation. You are of course entitled to disagree but please do it productively, not by questioning my motivation.

As an FYI, as well as my "day job," I am also a very serious dog owner/exhibitor AND breeder with multiple AKC breed champions, an AKC agility champion, and numerous other obedience and agility titles. I have bred a grand total of 5 litters in about 15 years of showing and competing with dogs.

I think I am actually in a pretty good position, as an Indiana citizen, a lawyer with many years of reading and interpreting the Indiana code, and many years in the dog fancy, to make whatever comments I darn well want to about this bill without someone becoming "suspicious" about why.

It is a good thing I deal with discourse on a daily basis or my panties would be in a wad

I really think you are representing the commercial breeder, that's what I'm suspicious about. You have really overplayed this issue about them invading people's home, and going through their records. The bill clearly states, all the "records" have to contain is give the name and address of the people that you either sold a puppy to or if you are a broker, where you bought the puppy.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

The records are the name and address of who you sold the pets to. Why are you against this? .

I know what the records are. In Indiana, unless a police officer has reasonable suspicion that you are committing a criminal violation, they cannot require you to provide them with even YOUR name and address. Selling 6 dogs does not constitute reasonable suspicion of a criminal violation.

This provision is not only in conflict with our current law concerning Terry stops, but I don't the purported benefit of it either. What exactly would law enforcement be able to do with the names and addresses of 6 puppy buyers?