Allert all indiana breeders

[BamaFan121s]

Great descriptive info on the USDA's invovlement Cindy!

[Doodlebop]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

It should be for ANYONE that is cruel and inhumane to their dogs.

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...

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Um, the Grabers? Daviess County?

Better yet, just enter "puppy mills in Indiana" on google or yahoo - and read for yourself. Especially interesting are the descriptions of those who filed repeated complaints with the USDA regarding Indiana mills, about which the USDA did nothing. I would think since this is the area of your focus, you'd be well aware of all this.

Read about the Grabers and see how ineffective the entire process was in Indiana. They didn't even want a jury trial, bc they pretty much knew no jury in that county would convict someone of animal cruelty....I guess bc the mills are so "accepted" in that area.

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

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Doodlebop

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...

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.

[Woogie Man]

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?

[Doodlebop]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

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...

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

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?

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.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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?

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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.

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.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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?

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.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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!!

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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?

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.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

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.

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?

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

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.

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.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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?

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.