Allert all indiana breeders

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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.

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.

[yoursotino]

Great post wildcard

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wildcard

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.

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.

[wildcard]

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.

I brought up the Illinois law in support of what was referred to as a "slipperly slope" argument. The point was that I am not just making this stuff up-- there are certain people who support legislation that gradually, over the course of several years, will make it much harder for the hobby breeder and fancier to continue breeding dogs. Illinois is an example of this.

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.

[COLOR="Red"]If you read my earlier posts you will see that I asked from the minute I heard about the amendments to (a) be included in a second hearing in front of the House committee that fostered the bill (and was told they had already heard from anyone they wanted to hear from) and (b) that the matter be tabled and sent to summer study to allow interested individuals to be a part of formulating something that would be a heck of a lot more effective than this current proposal.

If I am remembering correctly, the purpose of this thread was to discuss the bill -- which includes whether or not it would be effective or better than current law-- I did not realize we were only allowed to post in response to a question you had posed. My comments are not BS.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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.

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

[wildcard]

Oops forgot one thing on the pet dealer issue and now I recall why I thought it would apply to me even though I had only sold 5 puppies in 2008. I had a litter of 2 and a litter of 6 last year. From the litter of 6, 5 puppies were sold. From the litter of 2, one was "offered for sale" even though because of the new owner's schedule she could not pick her up until after the first of the year. The pet dealer language includes dogs offered for sale in its definition. I knew there was some reason that when I read the pet dealer definition initially I saw it would apply to me personally. It probably would not apply to me this year as we are only planning on one litter, and probably no litters for several years after that. So that is also confusing- am I a pet dealer because once I had 5 puppies sold and one offered for sale within a year, or is it the prior year, or is it the current year? I am not sure about that, will have to re-read with that in mind.

I keep much more involved records than what this bill requires, but they are for me, and I guess for AKC if I ever bred 4 litters a year (I can't imagine doing that and remaining sane but it could happen if I stay co-owner on bitches who are bred by others I guess).

Really, this time I am going back to work

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wildcard

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

First of all, many of the puppy mills operated in Indiana are by the Amish, and the average person, doesn’t really know them well, or get invited to the farm. The Amish sells to puppy brokers such as the Hunt Corporation, who has a very big interest in any legislation being passed concerning breeding.

You will see by my previous posts on other threads, I always warn potential pet buyers from buying from pet stores and over the Internet. A pet buyer must see for themselves the conditions in which the dogs were raised. As individuals we can only do so much to control where other purchase things. However, as individuals we can do quite a bit to ensure that there are laws in place that have minimum standards for kennel conditions. That's what this bill addresses. Your main complains seem to be enforcement and application, not the specifics of the law.

[wildcard]

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.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wildcard

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.

This bill does more than focus on animal cruelty, it focuses on minimum standards for kennel conditions. If a kennel operator refuses to fix the problem, he probably can be fined or lose his license. Also the AKC can suspend breeders who are not living up to these minimum standards. I'm sure this is a conflict of interest for the AKC because it would mean a loss of money when breeders get suspended, but perhaps it will also increase the prestige of having an AKC pet meaning , "Cruel free breeder."


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?

[yorkiekist]

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.

Great post!!

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

Great post!!

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.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by wildcard

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.

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.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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.

Animal cruelty laws are different. They apply across the board to all animals. This is legislation for kennel conditions. Livestock aren't kept in our homes as pets. Many dogs are bred for companion pets and need much more attention than, for example, a pig or chicken.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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?

Wow- so suspicious! I show a yorkie, and he has lived with us since he was 4 months old (he is now 10.5 mos old). He is a doll and I really like the breed, I am learning a lot about caring for and showing a long coated breed. I will start his agility training this spring once it warms up a bit. Not really sure why whether I have photos up or not is really relevant. Frankly, I spend enough time sending photos to friends, family and sending them to the walmart website so I can print them out-- I really don't want/need one more place to upload them. And I didn't really think YT was the place to put my papillons' photos...

I have a special interest in dog breeding legislation because it is there that my profession and my hobby combine.