Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 2501306)

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.

Originally Posted by wildcard (Post 2501330)

I don't think I have overplayed anything. The focus of my posts is tht as a practical matter it does not make sense to enact legislation that won't be enforced any better than what we currently have is enforced.

In my first post I was making as analogy to having law enforcement review an individual's personal records. I just re-read that post (made from my blackberry in the car yesterday) and it was confusing and I am sorry for that. I am however pretty certain I never posted that the bill allows law enforcement to "invade someone's home."

I am not representing anyone other than me, myself, and I.

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 2501337)

If the state of Indiana has a problem enforcing laws, then I suggest you do something about that. To say a law is bad because we don't enforce laws here anyway, doesn't make any sense to me. I think this is another attempt at redirection instead of speaking to specific parts of the legislation that need to be worked on or changed.

Originally Posted by wildcard (Post 2501353)

I would encourage anyone who says they know of a puppy mill, hoarding, or even a single animal abuse situation to contact local law enforcement. I have already discussed what I understand about law enforcement's priorities and budget limitations. I cannot singlehandedly raise our taxes so as to provide a larger budget so that our local governments can provide for additional staff and resources to investigate and prosecute those cases. under our current state law.

I also speak to everyone who talks to me about getting a dog (and as our local bar association's unofficial "dog person" this is a lot of people) about looking to shelters, rescues, or small hobby breeders as the source. Really, were people to stop buying dogs from pet stores and internet retailers, pure economics would shut down any mills. The information is out there-- if someone takes 10-15 minutes of internet research time they will figure out pretty quickly the best way to find a pet.

I think my statements about not making laws for the sake of making them, without really sitting down and identifying the problem and looking for the least restrictive way of stopping the problem, make a lot of sense. But you are entitled to your thoughts on that. I'm just here to share my opinions and observations from the point of view of someone who understands the legislative process fairly well and who is involved with the practical application of state law.

Signing off now, I need to get back to work ;)

Originally Posted by wildcard (Post 2501445)

Argh, I do need to get some work done. Drat YT sometimes lol. My problems are with the concept of using limit laws and breeder licensing because they don't address the root issue-- are the dogs being neglected or abused? I have no skin kids. My dogs are my kids. But my feelings about my dogs don't apply to everyone. I think unless a dog is being harmed due to mistreatment or neglect, it really is not the government's business to say you can only have "x" number of intact dogs or you can only breed a bitch every other cycle, etc.

I do have fears that what is happening 20 miles from my house in Illinois will happen here in 10 years if we open the door to limits and management of breeding practices by our state government. I think our goal should be legislation that is focused on whether or not an animal is being harmed.

Also, I have very strict opinions on what is ethically or morally correct when breeding dogs. But I also don't know that my beliefs on these issues should equate to should be legal vs illegal.

Originally Posted by wildcard (Post 2501189)

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.

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2501514)

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:Great post!!

Originally Posted by wildcard (Post 2501445)

Argh, I do need to get some work done. Drat YT sometimes lol. My problems are with the concept of using limit laws and breeder licensing because they don't address the root issue-- are the dogs being neglected or abused? I have no skin kids. My dogs are my kids. But my feelings about my dogs don't apply to everyone. I think unless a dog is being harmed due to mistreatment or neglect, it really is not the government's business to say you can only have "x" number of intact dogs or you can only breed a bitch every other cycle, etc.

I do have fears that what is happening 20 miles from my house in Illinois will happen here in 10 years if we open the door to limits and management of breeding practices by our state government. I think our goal should be legislation that is focused on whether or not an animal is being harmed.

Also, I have very strict opinions on what is ethically or morally correct when breeding dogs. But I also don't know that my beliefs on these issues should equate to should be legal vs illegal.

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 2501531)

Yorkiekist, I would like to know why you think a law should not be written that gives minimum kennel conditions. That's really what this law is about - kennel conditions for the commercial breeder. This is someone whose dogs have more than 10 litters of puppies a year.

I think it's up to everyone who loves a dog to make sure that they are being raised with at least some minimum standards.

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2501549)

:thumbup:We need you and your common sense approach in every state!!! You have explained these bills wonderfully and definately much better than I can. The bills should be about animal cruelty and there are already laws against this in probably every state.

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 2501500)

Just out of curiosity, you say your dogs are your kids, but I don't see any pictures of them. Do you even own a yorkie, or are you mainly interested in breeding legislation?