I see a few things in this bill I would be concerned about. The bill itself looks to have so much stuff to go through to get to the rules of breeding that its a bit confusing.

Not only that 6 dogs a year making someone a "dealer", (no hobby breeder I know wants that classification).

The clause that any Vet can report a breeder with no recourse is a problem for me. I have been at odds before on treatment with a Vet. He could under this law report me and have me subjected to legal battles and even if I am right I can't sue to recoup my costs for defense. If you think all vets are not above causing trouble for someone your dreaming. I have met some nasty Vets in my time.

Also even before you are found guilty of anything it reads that "Require the defendant to refrain from owning, harboring, or training an animal". So where would your dogs go? Are they confiscated from you without conviction?

Also the definition of "maiming" a dog does not have an exception for dew claws or tails or ear cropping. Whether or not you agree with this practice it is common on many breeds and now could be used to charge someone with animal cruelty? It doesn't seem clear to me in this bill.

I am not a lawyer or from Indiana but it looks like it needs more work to me.

These kinds of laws will not stop commercial kennels at all. They already have strict restrictions and kennel conditions under USDA. Those that don't follow those rules are already breaking the law. Amish puppy mills that sell to Brokers or Pet stores fall under federal USDA guidelines. If they have more tha 3 intact females and sell to Brokers they are by law to be USDA licensed and inspected.
They won't obey new laws any better than they do the ones now. Some of these bills might make a good hobby breeder quit though. Pa has many mills, yet lots of strict laws.


My fear of all the new laws being proposed is that the only breeders that will be left in the country is going to be USDA commercial breeders. (commercial breeders want all breeders under USDA without exception, they think its only fair)

Instead of making these kinds of laws, I believe they should be making laws to abolish pet store animal sales and brokers. Make a law that if you breed you sell from your own place. That way each buyer sees where the animals are being raised and how. There could be much better control this way. The market would weed out mills by no sales where people see uncared for dogs. JMO.

Not speaking for yorkiekist (remember, I am not representing anyone here) but there are minimum kennel conditions in place for those breeders who sell to brokers pursuant to the federal Animal Welfare Act and the administrative standards put in place by the USDA pursuant to that law. You can get some information about those here: 2003 CFR Title 9, Volume 1

If they are not being used, that is an enforcement issue.

I particularly like this part of the law. A vet MAY report some one of cruelty without fear of being sued.

Sometimes vets are the first to know about abusive conditions. Should they have to risk their practice, in order to report suspected abuse? There are similar laws that have been in place for physicians, who have been able to help get children out of abusive situations, because of similar laws.

I'm not sure you could make a law that abolishes sells of animals from pet stores or brokers. Laws have to be made within the framework of the constitution, and that seems to go against the framework, but I'm no lawyer.

This has been an informative thread and Wildcard, thanks for your specific knowledge of this bill. Yours is a unique perspective, being that you are a lawyer, dog lover and resident of Indiana. With all these bills coming forward, it seems like this debate could be repeated over and over with some variations. I don't think there's any debate that we all want what's best for all dogs but rather we see a debate where some say, "there outta be a law" and others say, "well, there is already a law". I would throw in with the latter group since we already have animal cruelty laws on the books, USDA inspections for commercial breeders, AKC inspections and the like. If anything is lacking, it's enforcement. How does a new law that requires voluntary compliance and citizen complaints to initiate enforcement do anything new? The one thing I see lacking are stiffer penalties for those convicted and that could be addressed by amending existing laws rather than overwhelming agencies with new regulations. The only real thing I see for the states is a new source of revenue and I've yet to see it specified where that money would go. If it goes into the general fund, what good does that do for the dogs? One issue I often see tied to this type of legislation is pet over-population. I have already expressed my opinion that these laws don't address this issue. Without reading back through all the posts, I believe someone here mentioned that dogs are actually being imported by some shelters. This is galling to me in the face of so many animals being euthanized but, apparently, it is true. I did a little quick googling around and found these links if anyone is interested. Dog Owner's Guide: Shelters Adopt Shelter Dog| Animal Shelters PetPAC: More Cities Importing Pound Puppies

I dont know every law that already exists in every state. This new bill states that the excersize area must be 2 times the size of the primary area. Does that mean that I have to build a house twice the size of the one I have for excersize? I use x-pens for outside. My dogs are never left outside unattended. Also, I dont want to hire a mathmetician to design kennels for all shapes and sizes of dogs that may reside at my house. (I do a little handling now and then) This would not work for pro handlers either. Sometimes they have 30+ dogs and sometimes they have 10. All are intact. I guess they are commercial breeders. Mandatory micro-chips? What about all that cancer they supposedly cause? What about a handler? These arent even the handlers dogs. Some of these dogs stay at the handlers home for a year or more.
There is no protection or recourse for breeders reguarding buyers that may possible lie about a health issue. What if my vet says something totally different than the buyers vet? Looks like the breder is ALWAYS going to be the one at fault. They are implementing breeding practices that some breeders do not agree with. Lets not have the stupid government tell me how to breed, when to breed and how to place my puppies. As for records, AkC already has them beat: 7 years.
Sorry if I cant write or explain as eloquently as wildcard, but wildcard is right on the money on this.

First of all, are you breeding 10 litters a year? If not, you don't have to follow this. I would guess that primary area, might define the actual kennel or cage where the dog spends most of it's time, and the exercise area should be twice that size. It probably defines the term "primary area" in some part of the bill.

What do you think is a reasonable number of litters for the home breeder to have? Ten litters to me sounds like a very high number, if your having 10 or more litters a year you would be required to register as a commercial breeder, and all the things you mention only apply to the commercial breeder.

Microchips are probably required for several reasons. One might be because commercial breeders do identify dogs with tattoos, the microchip would be way less painful. Also commercial breeders have been know to dump or shoot dogs, no longer necessary to their breeding program, and this would enable authorities to know who the dog belonged to. As far as microchips causing cancer, no link has been found and there is only one dog that has developed a tumor around the chip, and this I believe is in Russia.

The lemon puppy law only applies to commercial breeders, and only in certain conditions. Not sure what these are, I haven't studied every part of the bill, but I am interested in it mainly on how it would affect the home breeder. The lemon puppy law won't affect the home breeder of Pet Dealer.

So a commercial breeders would be those that are selling 10 litters of dogs a year, and a "Pet Dealer" is someone who "sales for profit" 6 or more dogs a year. All they have to do is keep a record of who they sold the pets to, just the name and address of the customer, that's all, and this is the record that has to be made available should authorities request it. The second thing a Pet Dealer has to do, is make available any vet records, should a potential customer request them.

If you are selling less than 6 dogs a year, you don't have to change anything, or keep any records.


As far a your statement that AKC requires that you keep records for 7 years, remember, lots of kennels have been suspended by the AKC, and also remember that the AKC can't suspend anyone who is following state law regarding kennel conditions. That's why the states must make the laws.

Once a state adopts a lemon law, it will apply to puppies sold more profit..What makes you think otherwise... You mean because it doesn't specify that completely, Think of it from a litigation standpoint, The judge will enforce the law for what it says, It does not protect the breeder.

Volume does not equal puppy mill... I don't know why you can't understand that!!!

Microchipping isn't for identification of dogs that have been shot, it is not illegal to shoot your dog. If it is because of they are being dumped that would eliminate that problem, because they would all be shot..The problem is not microchipping each puppy, it is that you have to make sure it is registered too, and the only way to do that is to buy the prepaid registration, and fill it out and send it in with every puppy.

You continue to restate the fact, that being a Pet Dealer is no big deal, Would you want that label, I am sure that in the beginning, they thought being USDA certified was no big deal, but now if you are USDA certified you are automatically stereotyped as a PUPPY MILL..

I think as a pet owner only, You are not qualified to argue this bill. If you are not open minded and cannot put yourself in the shoes of small breeders, hobby breeders, show breeders and large volume breeders then how can you effectivly argue these points... Not only can you not put yourself in the shoes of these people, but you automatically classify our state as "farmers and hunters" As if that is a bad thing.

I know a few breeders that, under this law, would be considered high volumn breeders. Their dogs are kept in immaculate condition. Some are sold for show, search and rescue, seeing eye, hunting, companion, agility, therapy etc. They have more or less about 10 litters per year. Some years more than others. The parents have all the necessary health/temperment testing done and the puppies do too(what ever is needed for that age). All of these people have wonderful health guarantees. These are dedicated breeders. I dont see how they can be considered the same as a commercial breeder, if we are saying that commercial=puppy mill. Thats another thing that wrong with these bills. What, exactly, defines a puppy mill or a byber? What defines a hobby breeder or an exhibitor breeder? It is still legal to have a dog breeding business, large or small, in this country. There are some people that absolutely LOVE breeding dogs! They LOVE dogs! They have made it their business doing what they LOVE. Sure, they make money, but isnt that what a business does? These are the people that, more than likely, do it the correct way. Its just like there are some people that LOVE horses and LOVE breeding horses. But they have a business and they either make money or they find another job away from home. Do I agree with these breeding ethics? Its actually none of my business! Unless there is actual cruelty going on.
On the flip side, you have the "other people" that are ONLY motivated by $$$ and do as little as possible in the way of care and housing. These are the "breeders" we need to stop! We do need harsher sentences for these people instead of just a slap on the wrist.
I am sure that each state has some sort of animal cruelty laws. When AkC inspects, if the kennel is not up to par, AKC will call animal control/cruelty investigators and suspend all AkC breeding/exhibiting priveledges pending investigation. Depending on the outcome of the investigation, AKC will either re-instate your privledges or you could be banned for ever.
Now that most of the puppy mills dont use AkC anymore, thanks to the DNA requirements and unannounced inspections, they are a little harder to find out. Evidentally, ApRi and the other alphabet soup registries are not doing a good job except when it comes to raking in $$.

I dont even know where I was going with this anymore!:)

I guess I just have one question. Will all of you be PROUD to say that you got your Yorkie/dog form a COMMERCIAL BREEDER? Because that is what you will be labeling all of us.

quote=Doodlebop;2502091 Once a state adopts a lemon law, it will apply to puppies sold more profit..What makes you think otherwise... You mean because it doesn't specify that completely, Think of it from a litigation standpoint, The judge will enforce the law for what it says, It does not protect the breeder.

The lemon law will only apply to commercial breeders, unless they make a new law. A judge has to enforce a law, he cannot enforce a law that doesn't apply or use his discreation to define a commercial breeder, since the law give a clear definition of this.


Volume does not equal puppy mill... I don't know why you can't understand that!!!

Volume may not equal puppy mill, but volume does differentiate between the commercial dealer from the home breeder. If a commercial dealer raises kennel conditions they won't be labeled puppy mills. I have no problem with large breeding facilities, if the dogs are raised in humane condition. While I prefer the home breeder, and want to do help protect their interests, I have nothing against commercial dealers.


Microchipping isn't for identification of dogs that have been shot, it is not illegal to shoot your dog. If it is because of they are being dumped that would eliminate that problem, because they would all be shot..The problem is not microchipping each puppy, it is that you have to make sure it is registered too, and the only way to do that is to buy the prepaid registration, and fill it out and send it in with every puppy.


WHAT?????? Well things are worse in Indiana than I thought, I'm sorry it is not illegal to shoot dogs, and I hope this law changes in Indiana as well.

I can understand why commercial dealers don't want to spend a penny on registration, but that's too bad. Again, this doesn't apply to the home breeder.

You continue to restate the fact, that being a Pet Dealer is no big deal, Would you want that label, I am sure that in the beginning, they thought being USDA certified was no big deal, but now if you are USDA certified you are automatically stereotyped as a PUPPY MILL..

The law has to define terms; there is nothing wrong with the term. A pet dealer could be a premier show breeder, as well as a horrible back yard breeder, and everything in between, it could also be a puppy broker who doesn't breed anything, but only sells dogs. It only means that people who sell 6 or more dogs a years will have to keep simple records from whom they buy and sell their dogs. I think many bad breeders might be afraid of this because they don't want to show vet records. I don't know why a good breeder would find this objectional. Many puppy brokers aren't going to like it either because they will have to inform others where they purchased their dogs, and so if they were purchased from a puppy mill, they can't mislead people.


I think as a pet owner only, You are not qualified to argue this bill. If you are not open minded and cannot put yourself in the shoes of small breeders, hobby breeders, show breeders and large volume breeders then how can you effectivly argue these points... Not only can you not put yourself in the shoes of these people, but you automatically classify our state as "farmers and hunters" As if that is a bad thing.

I am not trying to argue for this bill, my original posts were intended to learn how the small breeder would be affected. I wanted specific information, and when I was told things I checked them out, and read the bill, and learned they were simply not true. Indiana is the state I was born and raised in, I love Indiana, as well a farmers and hunters, but I do not automatically endorse breeding legislation that is intended to cater to farmers and hunters. None of the farmers or hunters I've ever known would raise dogs in the conditions that many states still allow. I am proud that Indiana is doing something about this.

I happen to be an extreme advocate of the small breeder, as I said before there is no organization looking out for them. I truly believe the small breeder is being purposely mislead, so that the bill won't pass, and commercial breeders will water it down, and make it more to their liking, but if you think they want to protect the small breeder you are sadly mistaken. Commercial breeders pay lobbyists to come to forums such as this, and spread lies, most small breeders, don't have the time to read through tedious laws, and tend to believe what other small breeders are saying about the law. I would hate to endorse one law that could hurt a good breeder, but no one has given me one example of how this law could negatively impact the small breeder. The commercial breeder on the other hand will not doubt be seriously impacted by this legislation, and I bet there are willing to spend lots of money so that this bill doesn't pass.

Ten litters a year, is quite a few litters, at some point you have to come up with a number that is suitable. Maybe a breeder of a toy breeds could manage 10 litters, since a litter isn't that big, but, this law covers all breeds and 10 litters a year, could be as many as 100 dogs. I would say at some point they would have to be registered as a commercial kennel. Like I said before, I don't know the number, I actually think someone like you and the other good breeders could come up with a reasonable number. I imagine someone right on the edge could cut back a little or plan the next litter for the next year.

A commercial breeding facility isn't automatically a puppy mill, a puppy mill is a nickname for commercial breeders who keep their dogs in inhumane conditions. There are no legal definitions for backyard breeder, we all have our own definition for it, it's just meant to mean small lousy breeder. However, most don't abuse their pets, and at least most of the dogs live in suitable environments, and are loved.

You keep saying that when AKC inspects, they can call cruelty people, no they can't, not unless they are breaking the law of the state that the kennels are in. Again, many of these breeders aren't with the AKC, and APRl was created by the commercial pet industry for themselves. Do you think they will shut down their own businesses?

You asked if we will be proud to say we got our pet from a commercial breeder, and thats what all of you will be labled as, but only if you are producing 10 litters a year. I will be proud to say I purchased my pet from a cruety free breeder.

By the way, many have said we already have laws, we don't need this, if you look at the law, the parts they are adding are written in Bold text. Nearly all of it describes kennel conditions. The parts written in regular type are already the law.

Am I reading the wrong bill? Didnt I see somewhere about 5 or more puppies sold in one year? I had a Yorkie that had a litter of 7 once. None turned out showable so I sold the whole litter.
Also, I bet that alot of Yt members got their Yorkie/dog from a now labeled "commercial" breeder, who otherwise would be a hobby breeder based on 5 or more puppies per year.

A commercial breeder is different than a "Pet dealer" a pet dealer is simply someone who sells more than 5 dogs a year. If you sell more than 5 dogs, you have to keep a record of who you sold them to, their name and address that's all. You have to also keep for two years any vet information you have on the dog. You do not have to keep any financial information on the transaction. Just name and address of buyers, and vet information should be available for buyers to see.

I actually think they are making the Pet Dealer catagory so they can get more information from people who work as puppy brokers. There are a lot of people who act like they are small breeder who don't breed at all, but are actually puppy brokers, and it's a serious problem.

I dont want to be labeled as a "pet dealer" either. In fact, I dont want a label. I just want to be me. Known as a reputable breeder of Yorkies that exhibits them to improve her breeding program. That does sell puppies that dont fit the criteria for a show/breeder prospect, but will otherwise make a great pet. A person who is always learning about the issues of her breed of choice.

How about this added to the bills?
 

I have not heard any response as to why the UDSA regulations in place for either large or small volume breeders who sell to brokers, put in place pursuant to the federal Animal Welfare Act, are not adequate. I added a link to the site in a previous post. Pretty stringent housing and care requirements... If mills are operating under the radar of the USDA, we are back to enforcement, not needing more laws.

Basically, we have a situation where breeders who sell to brokers are covered by federal law. Then we have an animal neglect and cruelty statute that applies to all other animal owners, whether they breed or not. It is my opinion those laws are adequate. And so far, still no examples of a situation in which Indiana police officers or sheriff deputies or prosecutors were unable to investigate or pursue criminal charges against someone who operated what people would generally consider to be a mill because our laws were not good enough.

Also, do not forget that part of the current neglect/cruelty statute we already have in place does allow for local government to seize and take possession of neglected dogs. We aren't just talking about fines and jail time-- the animals can be removed and rehabilitated under our current law.

One part of the bill I find humorous is that per the debate that was had on the House floor, the commercial breeder registry is going to be an e-registry to supposedly save on paying clerk time. I can just see all these purported Amish run millers hopping on the 'net to sign up.

As for shooting dogs, I doubt that that happens very frequently. I certainly have not heard of any rampant dog shooting sprees in Indiana. I do know of an incident a county over from me where a woman shot at a neighbor's dog, missed, the bullet then hit and killed the daughter-in-law of the neighbor that owned the dog. That is the last attempted dog shooting incident I recall-- and obviously the shooter is being prosecuted. Under our property laws, you would not be able to shoot someone else's dog unless it was done for a legally justifiable reason. We may be a little redneck at times, but generally we are not heathens.