[News] Puppy Mill Bills Across the Nation

[yorkiesmiles]

Senate panel OKs 'puppy mill' measure | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

Senate panel OKs 'puppy mill' measure
Associated Press
Posted: March 31, 2009

An Indiana Senate committee has advanced a bill to regulate large-scale dog breeding operations in the state, but some want stricter requirements on breeders.

The committee changed a House-passed bill on Tuesday to eliminate specific care standards, such as sanitary conditions and an hour of exercise a day for dogs. Instead, dog breeders would fall under certain regulations from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Dog breeders told lawmakers they approved of the change and supported the regulation. But several veterinarians and others said the USDA standards were made for livestock and are not fit for dogs.

The bill could undergo more changes as the GOP-controlled Senate and Democratic-led House try to reach a compromise.

[yorkiesmiles]

Puppy mill laws tough to figure out

Puppy mill laws tough to figure out
Opposing views on limits cloud definition of what would be ended
By Joe Petrie
Freeman Staff

WAUKESHA – In a quest to stifle Wisconsin’s growing puppy mill industry, lawmakers are introducing new bills that would make it harder for them to operate.

But anti-puppy mill legislation isn’t as easy to implement as most people might think because lawmakers can’t agree on what technically constitutes such an operation.

State Sen. Alberta Darling, RRiver Hills, recently introduced legislation that will require dog breeders who sell or offer at least 100 dogs per year to be licensed by the state Department of Agriculture.

It’s Darling’s third attempt to get the legislation passed, but she said she’s hopeful this time lawmakers will see its worth.

“It’s totally unacceptable to have these animals in unsafe and unsanitary conditions,” she said. “It’s unfair to the animals, it’s unfair to the consumers and there are people actually moving here because they got shut down in other states.”

Deb Lewis, president of the Wisconsin Federated Humane Societies, said that organization isn’t supporting Darling’s bill because it doesn’t institute any new laws. She said the organization is going to favor a bill that’ll be introduced later this week by state Sen. Pat Kreitlow, DChippewa Falls, and state Rep. Jeff Smith, D-Eau Claire, that will more closely mirror law recommendations put forth by the Puppy Mill Project.

Puppy mills are dog breeders who churn out as many dogs as possible in order to turn a profit. The dogs are generally kept in squalid conditions and suffer both behavioral problems and nagging health issues.

Lewis didn’t know all the specifics of the upcoming bill but it’ll most likely lower the registration number for breeders.

“Our state is one of the few without any type of oversight on puppy mills, so what’s happening is they’re coming here and that’s problematic because it’s a horrendous, god awful, cruel business,” Lewis said. “It impacts other areas like tourism, too, with these in our beautiful state. I also look at all the tax dollars being lost.”

Bob Welch, a representative of the Wisconsin Hunter’s Rights Coalition, recently sent a letter to all the members of the state Legislature expressing concern with the Humane Society of the United States’ efforts to lobby lawmakers on animal rights bills, including puppy mill legislation.

In the letter, WHRC charges the organization as being nothing more than a front group for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and has targeted legitimate hunting and outdoor dog owners by “legislation that goes far beyond any regulation necessary to rein in those who may keep dogs in bad conditions.”

“They don’t want to just cut down on puppy mills, but they want to use it to cut down on hunting dogs and their ultimate goal of eliminating hunting,” said Welch via phone interview. “This group has a very radical agenda.”

E-mail: jpetrie@conleynet.com

[yorkiesmiles]

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-bill-to-r...rticle/3358194

Oklahoma bill to regulate puppy mills advances
The Associated Press
Published: April 1, 2009


A bill designed to crack down on puppy mills passed a state Senate committee Wednesday after two days of contentious lobbying by dog breeders.

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 14-5 for the measure, which was introduced by Rep. Lee Denney, R-Cushing, who is a veterinarian. Denney said Oklahoma has a reputation for puppy mills and her bill seeks to penalize the "bad actors" in the dog breeding business.

But breeders who packed the committee rooms to hear the bill said the measure will simply drive puppy mills farther underground, while penalizing legitimate breeders who take care of their animals.

Oklahoma is estimated to have over 700 kennels and many more dog- and cat-breeding operations that are not registered with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Sen. Cliff Brannan, R-Oklahoma City, said House Bill 1332 sets minimum standards for breeding dogs and cats and only affects breeders who sell 35 or more animals a year.

It would be the first time the industry has been subject to state regulation. The state Department of Agriculture would write the regulations.

Some senators said a problem exists because of puppy mills in the state, but questioned whether the measure by Denney and Brannan would be effective.

Scores of mostly dog breeders lobbied against the bill in the two days leading up to the Senate panel's vote on the House-passed measure.

Rep. Jim Wilson, D-Tahlequah, said legitimate breeders should not be harassed, but lawmakers should address concerns of consumers. One criticism of puppy mills is they sell animals that are poorly cared for or have diseases or genetic disorders.

Wilson said it was an emotional issue for breeders and others.

"I didn't want to be involved. I was hoping I would die of a coronary before this bill came up," he said.

The bill now goes to the Senate floor and is likely headed for more work in a joint conference committee.

Sen. John Gumm, D-Durant, said bill did not exempt breeders who are registered with the USDA and was "fatally flawed."

Outside the committee room, breeders condemned the proposal, although most declined to be quoted by name, saying they feared retribution from animal-rights activists.

Barney Hawkins, who said he was a breeder located somewhere "east of Tulsa," said puppy mill operators would not step forward to be licensed by the state. He said the bill would mean extra regulation and taxation for breeders who are now regulated by the USDA.

"It will mean a new financial burden on small business people of Oklahoma," he said.

[yorkiesmiles]

Montana's News Station - Fair. Accurate. To the Point. -"Puppy mill" legislation moves to MT Senate

"Puppy mill" legislation moves to MT Senate

Posted: April 2, 2009 08:58 PM

The bill to prevent puppy mills in the state has made it through the Montana House of Representatives with a few minor amendments and is now being considered in Senate committee.

House Bill 548 would require registration and inspection of dog breeding facilities, including shelters, rescue facilities, and pet stores.

Changes relate to the inspection portion of the bill; rather than having unannounced inspections, the inspections would be conducted with 48 hours advance notice.

MT State Representative Dave McAlpine (D-Missoula) explained, "It needs a solution for a reason you may not expect and that is not just so that we can prevent the abuse of animals which is a very real need and it's something you should consider but I think the thing to keep in mind when you decide is how much we can save local taxpayers and governments by implementing this policy."

The bill says the state veterinarian's office would head up the inspections and the state will inspect as many facilities as possible with available funds in a proposed special revenue account for dog breeding and selling.

[yorkiesmiles]

from reading some of the comments on the website - it looks like this article is on the front page of Sunday's Indy Star - maybe someone on YT who gets this paper can confirm that.

Tightening the leash on puppy mills | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

Tightening the leash on puppy mills
Lawmakers want more regulations for industry rife with abuse
By Bill Ruthhart
Posted: April 5, 2009


An English bulldog puppy shot in the head, set on fire and dumped into a trash can. A mangy Doberman pinscher covered with oozing sores. Dozens of terriers crammed into wire cages only 18 inches tall, 2 feet wide and 3 feet deep.

These are the scenes painted by the few who have glimpsed the dark corners of Indiana's large-scale dog-breeding operations.

Thanks to some of the country's weakest animal-cruelty laws, Indiana is one of the nation's leaders in churning out puppies and is a haven for irresponsible breeders. The industry is so thinly regulated that prosecutors and police can do little to stop blatant neglect and abuse.

Although many breeders are legitimate, interviews of veterinarians, animal-rights advocates, prosecutors and others by The Indianapolis Star reveal an industry in which many others embrace a troubling bottom line: produce puppies as fast and cheaply as possible and sell them, often to unsuspecting buyers at the expense of a dog's health and well-being.

Breeding insiders estimate the state is home to 3,000 of these so-called puppy mills, fueling a $1.3 billion industry by producing tens of thousands of puppies a year, including untold numbers with genetic defects stemming from overbreeding.

In response, state lawmakers are trying to put a leash on the industry by subjecting breeders to state inspections, passing stricter animal-abuse laws and limiting how many dogs can be bred. The Humane Society of the United States is backing the bill and similar legislation in 32 other states.

"Many of these dogs live their whole lives in a cage. They're never held, never touched, never allowed to walk on grass and never taken to a vet," said Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, author of House Bill 1468, which would crack down on commercial breeders.

"It's just deplorable, and it's got to stop."

'A bad rap'?

Most of these breeders operate quietly on farms across Indiana, are not required to register with the state and are difficult to identify. Those who can be located are reluctant to talk.

The Star attempted to get a firsthand look at several breeding operations. In all, seven commercial breeders, and two organizations that represent them, either declined to comment for this story or did not return phone calls. Dozens more did not have listed telephone numbers.

Richard Frey, a commercial dog breeder in Shipshewana, was one of the few willing to speak. He said most breeders have been victimized by a handful of bad actors.

"All these horror stories they've brought into the (state) Capitol," Frey said. "They're just trying to give us a bad rap."

He said he had "nothing to hide" and that he does not abuse dogs.

Frey, however, withdrew an invitation to tour his Lone Oak Pets operation, saying he had been pressured to do so by several other breeders who did not want public exposure to commercial kennels while the issue is being debated by lawmakers.
'A hole in the law'

Under Indiana's animal-cruelty law, owners only have to give pets food and water.

"A person can shoot their own dog and kill it, and there's nothing we can do about it," Putnam County Prosecutor Tim Bookwalter said. "There's a hole in the law. It's been a major problem."

Two weeks ago, Bookwalter obtained a warrant to search a breeding operation on a Putnamville farm after receiving photos of abused dogs there.

When police officers arrived at the scene, they found 70 dogs in barns, living in squalor.

Among them was the bulldog puppy that had been shot because the breeder did not like its coloring, a Chihuahua with no fur left on its face and a Boston terrier that was too weak to walk.

Kim Nichols of the Putnam County Humane Society was there with a van ready to transport the abused dogs. But she left empty-handed. All the dogs had food and water, so no charges could be brought.

"I cried on the way home. It just broke my heart," Nichols said. "The puppy mills think they can just breed and breed and breed and it's OK as long as they make their money."

Nichols now is caring for one such dog, Pumpkin, a blind and deaf cocker spaniel that she thinks was dumped by a breeder in a cornfield.

Pumpkin has all the tell-tale signs of an overbred dog, including just a few teeth left in her mouth because of all the calcium leached from her body.

Terre Haute veterinarian Michael Staub found many dogs in similar condition in October on a Sullivan County farm.

Police obtained a warrant to search the farm after some of its 300 dogs had turned up at local vets.

That's where Staub treated the Doberman pinscher suffering from mange, saw terriers living in cramped cages and found an old bus filled with dogs. A dead Pomeranian had been discarded on top of a trash bin.

Police, again, could not press charges. Instead, they could only talk the owner into relinquishing 67 of the sickest dogs.

"You couldn't look around that farm and tell me there wasn't neglect and abuse going on, but under the state law, there wasn't," Staub said. "If we would have had this bill, they would have shut the place down."

Difficult to prosecute

In the only recent known case of a commercial dog breeder facing prosecution, Tammy Gilchrist was charged in Owen County in February on five felony counts -- of tax evasion.

The Indiana attorney general's office began investigating Gilchrist after receiving complaints from customers who purchased dogs from her with genetic and other health problems.

The state learned she had failed to register to do business in Indiana and obtained a court order preventing her from selling dogs. That led to a raid by the Indiana State Police, in which 74 of her 150 dogs were seized -- many of which were kept in pitch-black tool sheds, including a beagle with a failed C-section.

Gilchrist, who the state alleged owes $193,000 in back taxes, could not be reached for comment. Her case is pending.

One of Gilchrist's customers was Rep. Trent Van Haaften, D-Mount Vernon, whose wife bought a schnoodle -- a schnauzer-poodle mix -- from the breeder last year. The family never saw her kennel; Gilchrist had brought the dog to their home.

The dog died two days later of parvovirus, an infection that causes diarrhea and vomiting.

"You don't realize where some of these animals come from," Van Haaften said. "Admittedly, we were bad consumers, but (with the legislation) we can protect consumers in the future."

Breeder objections

Commercial breeders said they don't oppose strengthening the state's animal-abuse laws or being subjected to state inspections, because they said doing so will root out the bad kennels.

But these breeders object to two provisions that, in their view, go too far -- protections for consumers and a cap on how many dogs they can breed.

Under the legislation, buyers would be allowed to return puppies within 15 days if major health problems are discovered, and within a year if a genetic defect is found.

The bill also would limit the number of breeding females -- or those that are not spayed -- at 30.

"This 30-dog cap is really unreasonable, and it would put us out of business," said Frey, who has 60 adult dogs in two buildings at his operation. "The amount of money we spend on vet bills, dog food and to take care of our animals -- it wouldn't be worth it anymore."

Bob Kraft, director of state government for the Indiana Farm Bureau, agreed the cap would unfairly stymie the puppy industry.

"You've got to grow to be successful," he said. "To put an arbitrary limit on how large you can be . . . doesn't seem to be rational."

That's not how Lawson sees it.

She said even the large, commercial operations that keep their facilities clean and insist they take care of dogs can be homes to abuse.

With hundreds of dogs to keep track of, and few employees, Lawson said commercial breeders can't give the dogs and puppies the care they deserve.

"When their business is threatened, of course they're going to say they don't do these terrible things to dogs," she said. "That's why we need this cap, because they want this to be treated as an agriculture crop. To them, it's just a commodity, and that's a travesty."

But Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, said stronger animal-abuse laws, not a cap, would address the problem. "Conduct is more important than the number of dogs," he said. "Using a limit is being more arbitrary than it is being fair."

Lawson's original version of the bill passed the Democrat-controlled House by an 81-14 vote. But concerns from breeders and the farm bureau led to a compromise last week that eliminated the cap on dogs and the consumer protections, removed a requirement that dogs get daily exercise and erased other measures in the bill.

Supporters said the changes were necessary to get the legislation through the Republican-controlled Senate -- and to keep the stronger animal-abuse provisions intact. But Lawson said she will push to reinsert those proposals in the legislation.

If the Senate passes the bill, it would move to a conference committee, where the two chambers would have until the April 29 legislative session deadline to iron out their differences.

[yorkiesmiles]

This looks like a sidebar article to the above Indy Star story:


HOUSE BILL DEFINES COMMERCIAL BREEDERS

A large-scale breeding operation that sells hundreds of puppies per year. Under House Bill 1468, a commercial breeder would be defined as anyone with at least 20 female dogs that are not spayed.

TIPS FOR BUYING A PUPPY
» Research the breed of dog you want to buy to be sure it will be a good fit for your home.
» Check with experts to find recommended breeders.
» If you locate a breeder online, beware. Web sites often can be misleading or not indicative of the environment in which the puppy has been raised.
» If possible, ask to see the mother and father of the puppy and where the litter was raised. Temperament of the parents and condition of the puppy's litter mates can serve as a good indicator of its well-being.
» Secure a health guarantee from the seller (at least a three-day guarantee typically is offered).
» Upon buying a puppy, take it to a veterinarian as soon as possible to make sure it receives the proper vaccines, is checked for parasites and overall health.

KEY ARGUMENTS
Here are the main positions by those pushing for and against new restrictions on commercial breeders:

In favor
» A cap on the number of dogs a kennel can breed ensures animals are treated humanely and breeders are focused on producing the best-quality dogs.
» Forcing large kennels to register with the state and pay a fee would allow and fund regular inspections.
» Requiring dogs to have daily exercise, access to proper lighting and other protections would protect their health and well-being.

Against
» A cap would unfairly hurt the breeding industry, putting hundreds of workers out of business during a recession.
» Limiting the number of dogs that could be bred infringes on basic property rights farmers should be entitled to.
» Stronger animal-abuse laws, not a limit on dog breeding, will root out breeders who hurt their dogs.

[Martin0327]

Yorkie mauled to death in Castle Rock PetSmart - KDVR


I will never use Petsmart!!!