Indiana HB 1468 Yes. . . or No?
While looking for the results of the vote on Indiana House Bill 1468, I came across several articles vehemently opposed to its passage. Interestingly enough one was from the American Kennel Club (AKC) while another was from a hunting discussion board.
The position of both groups was that tightening the laws in Indiana would only hurt small breeders. One of the propositions in HB 1468 was limiting breeders to 30 breeding, non-spayed or non-neutered animals. The proposition was that it would limit gene pools, and hinder responsible breeding. While I can understand this point, I also have to wonder what a single individual needs with more than 30 breeding dogs. Depending on the breed that could be anywhere from 30-270 puppies a year.
Responsible breeding is for the betterment of the breed, not to make a living off of puppy sales. If one divides 270 by 2 then multiplies by $500. That is $67,500 dollars a year for half of what a breeder could breed. $500 was just an average figure, and probably is too low for any show quality dog. Those tend to range in the thousands of dollars.
This is just under the proposed limitations. It really makes me stop and wonder why they are upset. Is it because they see a $100,000 or more a year operation going downhill? What is wrong with requiring breeders to register themselves? To register their dogs? To require them to microchip their puppies, so those puppies can be returned to their breeders should they end up the shelter system?
The complaint that chipping is too expensive is a cop out. Talk to the local rescue group, they usually will micro chip a dog for $10 a dog. Puppy Lemon Laws protect buyers from bad breeders. In order to get compensation under those laws, genetic issues or health problems need to be documented by a veterinarian. At the worst, the owner of the “Lemon” puppy is entitled to vet expenses to the purchase price of the puppy or another puppy. If an honest breeder acknowledges that health problem arise, then why are they so angry at rectifying the sale of an unhealthy pup?
I understand the concern about regulation. The loss of some freedom, but Indiana has almost no protection for companion animals. This legislation is not targeted at legitimate breeders, and it would help to limit the number of unaltered animals a person could have.
Like this:
~ by shionsann on February 19, 2009.
Posted in Puppy Mill Stories
Tags: Dog Breeding, Indiana HB 1468, Puppy Mills
If I may, I would like to respectfully disagree with your postion.
Certainly ownership of 30 dogs does seem to be a little on the “extreme” side…and I don’t disagree with your position on that. However, if you read and consider the entire bill, sales of 5 or more dogs (no age restriction applies) per year puts you in the same category as someone who owns 30+ dogs.
Now knowing that most, if not all except the toy breeds, average litter size is 5 to 8, and America’s favorite breed, the Labrador retriever average litter size is 10, one litter is enough to require registration as a “commercial breeder”.
There in lies the problem with this bill. It was rushed to judgment, attached to a bill about parole boards, and there was no time for input from anyone outside of the HSUS circle. It is ANTI-DOG Breeding, not anti puppy mill…
You ask why a “responsible” breeder would object. I’ll tell you why…because irresponsible buyers are protected, and a responsible breeder has no recourse or defense. It’s the buyer’s word against the breeder, and the buyer is ALWAYS right…
Think about it….I don’t know of one single person that is opposed to regulation, or complete closure of bad puppy mills. NOT ONE….but I know several folks that are responsible pet owners that are occasional hobby breeders, that are law abiding, tax paying citizens that are now going to be faced with more government regulation…and for what?
There is no enforcement included in this legislation. Its just a foot hold for further regulation by the government and an advancement of the HSUS agenda to end all animal ownership and for all of us to be vegetarian….
Please feel free to disagree with me. It is through discussion that we learn for each other.
You are also assuming that if someone owns 30 dogs they are breeding them ALL every heat and making big bucks. You say what would any oe person need with 30 dogs? Well personally I would never own that many but who am I to say someone else can’t? While puppy mills are an issue, this bill does not target only a puppy mill. Hunter Joe might have 30 hunting and trial dogs that he spends his whole life dedicated to them, training them, showing them, hunting with them and breeding whenever he wishes to keep something from his own line to continue his hobby. The puppy mill guy has his all in filthy cages, never socialized, bred for money only. Thats a problem with me when ALL breeders are targeted and treated the same. I show my dogs. I have 5 intact females. 3 of which are geriatric and have not had a litter for a couple of years and wont have another. I spent around 8000.00 to finish my last CH. That was hotels, entry fee’s, gas, handler fee’s, show pictures etc. I feed a very pricey raw diet to my dogs. They all live in the house and sleep our bed our couch or their own custom made dog beds. I am breeding my new Champion when she comes in season. She could have 8 or 14 puppies! It’s a surgical implant breeding with a stud dog who lives in WA state. Careful selection, health testing via OFA has all been done and was not cheap either. The stud fee is 1500.00, the semen collection and shipping is another few hundred. The surgical implant is anywhere from 5 to 8 hundred depending on how many progesterone test we have to run. I am chaging a pretty penny for my puppies. I MUST if I want to continue my passion in my breed. It is not cheap to do things right. I could creless if anyone wants to ‘think’ I am making a boat load of money off my dogs. It is a VERY common misconception pushed by those who want to rule everyone elses life. I hope she has 12. I will charge 1800.00 per puppy and I hope to make enough to break even on this years expenses and start showing my next show girl. This law will label me a ‘pet dealer’. This is unfair and wrong on so many levels. It is easier to buy a car then it is to qualify for one of my pups. I have a great relationship with my pet owners. I know where ALL of my puppies are. If they do not go to show homes, they go on limited registration, spay neuter contract. I AM NOT THE PUPPY MILL PROBLEM and I do not want to be treated as such! I do not want to be labeled a ‘pet dealer’. I do not want to be treated like a criminal for being a responsible breeder. Education is the key to stopping puppy mills. Not new laws that harm everyone and lump anyone who ever breeds a dog all into the same twisted catagory.
Take all the money it will cost to try and enforce this law and put it into education instead. Forget about ‘Stop Puppy Mills’ and throw all that energy into How to purchase a pet campaigns. Billboards, Educational News paper ads, Visits to schools to talk to kids about the importance of responsible pet owning etc. The fastest way to stop a puppy mill is getting people to STOP BUYING FROM THEM.
This excerpt is from HB 1468. The entire bill may be seen at http://in.gov/legislative/bills/2009/PDF/HB/HB1468.2.pdf
Sec. 4. “Commercial dog breeder” means a person who
maintains adult female dogs that produce ten (10) or more litters
in one (1) twelve (12) month period.
Kim I hope your Champion produces 12 pups as well. You are clearly a responsible breeder. However if I was an irresponsible breeder and bred 10 dogs who each had 8 pups that would still be 8*10*1800= $144,000.
This law is not targeting you it is targeting the unscrupulous people who don’t care. You are clearly not harboring a large number of unaltered dogs and producing more than 10 litters a year. So you would not be labeled a pet dealer.
Hi Shionsann
You must have missed the part in the bill that has regulations for me.
“Sec. 7. “Pet dealer” means any person, or the employee of a person, who:
(1) engages in the sale of dogs to the public for profit; or
(2) sells or offers for sale more than five (5) dogs in one (1) year.”
My breed of dog generally has more then 5 puppies in a litter. So I would indeed be a ‘Pet Dealer’ in this bill. The regulations and rules for ‘pet dealers’ is not bad BUT my issue with it is that it is there in the first place. This is supposed to be a ‘Puppy Mill Bill’ so I do not like that they have included ANYONE who as even one litter in this bill. I have also watched other states and legislation and what happens is they slip in Pet Dealer this year and next year there will be added legislation that gives me many rules and tells me how I have to do things. Check the Louisville laws. They started with calling show hobby breeder a pet dealer and with in 2 years animal control was conducting raids on people and taking their dogs. As stupid as that sounds.. It is indeed happening. http://www.louisville-pets.com/
So I am against this bill because I know from watching FL, IL, KY, CA. that Indiana is the next target of HSUS and their agenda.
I always hear that puppy mills make these huge bucks like in your scenario, however when you see these puppy mills the owners are living in squaler, driving old beaters, living in shack looking houses with very unkempt landscape. So what the heck are they doing with their money? Just curious. if these big operations were making so much $$ seems like they would be living a little higher on the hog.
I was wrong you would be labeled a Pet Dealer, but the regulations are not unreasonable. You agreed with that in your previous post, and I would expect someone who sounds as professional as you do to at least have those records and perhaps more in your back files.
I don’t have a problem with requiring anyone who has a litter and plans to sell them be responsible and keep records. Five is too low for larger breed dogs but a larger number does not protect small breed dogs who may only have one puppy. It leaves them vulnerable.
I don’t think we cannot pass legislation that will protect our companion animals because we are afraid of what might happen n the future. I looked at http://www.louisville-pets.com/ and I am saddened and enraged that they have perverted laws designed to protect animals. But I don’t honestly believe that is the intent behind the bill.
I honestly believe that the puppy mills that get busted are the ones that are poorly run. The ones that make all the money are well hidden. There was a news article in the South Bend area where an Amish puppy mill was uncovered http://www.wsbt.com/home/video/35024484.html and nothing was done. In fact it almost sounds like they condone puppy mills because the income from the breeding feeds an entire Amish family.
Remember Micheal Vick? His dog fighting ring ran for years before it was uncovered and he made lots of money on animal suffering. That would be a prime example of a well run, well hidden, profitable, illegal animal scenario.
You said “Five is too low for larger breed dogs but a larger number does not protect small breed dogs who may only have one puppy. It leaves them vulnerable.”
Apparently you have forgotten that this bill is supposed to be a ‘Puppy Mill bill’. What part of a person having ONE or two litters or ONE puppy in a year has anything to do with puppy mills? What about keeping a record on one puppy or 10 keeps them from being ‘Vulnerable’?
I already keep records of all my litters but I don’t want some idiot animal control/animal rights freak knocking on my door trying to intimidate me and forcing me to show them my records or take them. Like I said… the Animal rightist are a sly group. First they introduce a so called ‘puppy mill bill’ and sneak in the words ‘Pet Dealer’ which under their own description has NOTHING to do with a puppy mill.. Next year they will introduce a whole new list of BS rules for the hobby breeder/show exhibitor and you will end up like Louisville and Florida. I have been watching these laws unfold innocent piece by piece until it has turned to out right stripping of a persons rights. I am not a ‘pet dealer’. Pet dealers are puppy mills and pet stores. But they are given ‘commercial breeder’ title. Ya know… this animal rights movement has got things so screwed up that our own president feels he has to RESCUE a dog that comes from someome who did not give a rats butt about the breed because as long as that poorly bred specimen is in a shelter, then the rest of us who are pillars of our breeds who make sure our dogs adhere to the standard, who health test our dogs and study our breed, pedigrees, health.. well we are all now some kind of criminals to buy a pet from simply because some puppy mills and back yard breeders have filled the shelters. It is a sick and twisted way of thinking. The puppy mills will just go further underground or pay their ‘commercial breeder’ fee’s and continue to produce sick animals who barely resemble their breed. Back yard breeders will continue to buy these dogs and breed them with the mutt next door out of pure ignorance, the shelters will be forced to kill just as many dogs each year and the laws on those of us who truly care will stiffen. Ask Louisville and FLorida if thier shelters are less full since they made these laws. I AM NOT THE PROBLEM and I am tired of watching these animal rightist twist everyones mind to think they are helping.
“I AM NOT THE PROBLEM.”(Kim) I agree, you are not the problem. You are responsible and you care for the welfare of your dogs. I wish all breeders behaved the way you do.
“Apparently you have forgotten that this bill is supposed to be a ‘Puppy Mill bill’. What part of a person having ONE or two litters or ONE puppy in a year has anything to do with puppy mills?”(Kim)
Puppy mills start out small and as people discover they can make money “selling” puppies their operations grow. I am talking about the irresponsible breeders, who don’t care about breed standards all they see is $400 a puppy. This is a link to five malamute puppies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd2yvCN_f5g who found themselves the victim of irresponsible breeding. These were the five left over puppies he could not sell, had he had to keep records and follow some rules, perhaps the A-team would not have found themselves in such dire straights. Or maybe they would not have been bred at all.
“What about keeping a record on one puppy or 10 keeps them from being ‘Vulnerable’?”(Kim)
The difference is one large dog can easily produce ten puppies. While it may take ten small breed dogs to produce ten puppies. What I meant was the legislation helps protect the ten it may take to produce those ten small breed puppies. The small breed dogs are the ones who remain vulnerable with a higher puppy count.
I have met Linda Lawson, one of the writer’s of the bill, and I do not believe that she wants to, “introduce a whole new list of BS rules for the hobby breeder/show exhibitor.” I think she just wants to enact stronger laws to protect companion animals, since Indiana has virtually no protection laws in place.
The shelters in Florida are very overfull. I lived there for a few years and the hold time before euthanasia was atrociously short. Michigan and Kentucky are not much better. However if you look at some of the major cities in Wisconsin they actually have a pet shortage and will transport shelter animals from other states into their shelter system. However, the reason they have a shortage is because their licensing fees are very high for anyone who has an unaltered animal. So people alter their pets. Not friendly conditions for a hobbiest breeder, and not legislation I would like to see enacted here because that is anti-breeding.
What do you think would be good legislation? We agree that puppy mills are bad and something needs to be done about them, but my perspective is as a rescuer not a breeder. I would be interested in hearing a breeder’s idea of good legislation that addresses both our concerns.
I read an article today that said they are discussing sending HB 1468 to a summer study session to get more input. Here is the story if you are interested. http://www.monroehumane.org/news/article.php?id=327 Perhaps your input could change and improve the bill. I know I am certainly open to ideas the benefit both responsible breeding and attempt to improve the penalties for people who mistreat animals.
I just saw this and thought you might find it interesting as well, since it’s about the topic we are discussing. Friday, March 27, at 11:35 pm EST, ABC’s Nightline investigates puppy mills. Sharyn Alfonsi tours mills and interviews a mill breeder.
It sounds as though you are ‘for’ putting some laws on everyone to police a select few. This is where I don’t agree with pet legislation. It in some small way puts a target on everyone’s back as being a potential bad guy/puppy mill. It’s like saying.. OK, everyone who takes prescription drugs has to be labeled a drug dealer because a few of those who are on prescription drugs will abuse the system and sell theirs. Or like saying all parents are subject to someone knocking on their door and having their home and practices inspected at any given time because a few parents are abusing their kids.
There are laws in Indiana that are set up to protect against cruelty to animals but they are not enforced. I do not see how ‘new laws’ are going to protect animals either. Who is going to police this? Who is going to pay for it? There could be a puppy mill in any given barn 200 feet from the road or nearest neighbor that no one ever knows about. Those people are not going to get caught or pay fee’s or any other thing. Don’t you ever drive by places and wonder what they are possibly hoarding in those buildings way off the road? Will they all become inspected now? Look… I do things in a very ethical manner but there have been a few people over the years that don’t agree with who I bred my dogs to or the fact that I bred a bitch who was not a finished Champion etc.. Those people have called me a puppy mill simply because they don’t like me. And simply because a puppy mill has not ever truly been defined by law.
At this point in time, AKC requires that breeders keep records on all of their litters. AKC occasionally inspects kennels. They have never been to my house and I seriously doubt they ever will. I think most of the time they respond to complaints by buyers and go check things out. They have their own sets of fines and or suspensions if they feel dogs are not kept properly. I see no reason for the law to label me as anything/Pet Dealer for ANY reason. The key to stopping puppy mills is NOT new laws that further burden the tax payer, but to instead EDUCATE the public on how and where to buy a puppy. Nothing will shut down a puppy mill faster then if people stop buying from them and pet stores. Truth is most people have no clue that buying from these places is wrong. The days of deciding you want a dog and looking in the news paper ads COULD come to end if instead of laws, we started running our own ads and commercials about buying responsibly. Encourage people NOT to save those dogs by purchasing one that they find in horrific conditions. Walking away will save future generations because no sales.. is the stopper.. When people ‘save’ one, they encourage another breeding because these puppy mills and back yard breeders could careless WHY someone bought their pup. A sale is a sale and a good day for them.
Yes, dogs will have to suffer before the message is loud and clear and people are educated on the subject but the end result is a smarter people and less puppy mills.
This year it is “Pet dealers’ are anyone who sells over 5 puppies has to keep records for 2 years.. Next year.. a ‘pet dealer’ has to pay fines for intact dogs. The year after that, a pet dealer is a criminal if they have more then 2 litters or as in Florida, would have to refund the entire amount for a puppy to the owner if the puppy picks up round worms and is deemed unfit for sale by some idiot veterinarian. Or as in Louisville… NO ONE no matter who you are can walk a dog in tact on a leash longer then 4 feet! Or if your dog barks and annoys your neighbor 3 times.. you can not own a dog for 5 years. I hate to sound paranoid about dog laws and the future but both PETA and the HSUS have outlined their goals and they fully intend to chip away at everyone’s rights page by page of legislation and turn us all into vegans by law. It seems like something that would never happen but I ask you to look at some of the laws now in CA where farmers have to pay extra money for their pig farms if they have a certain number of them.. WHY?? Because pigs FART! Clean air act or some BS. SO these bacon makers are not making hardly anything in the first place, so many will just shut down. The price of bacon goes even higher then it is now and the next thing you know.. only the rich will enjoy a slice with their eggs. I know full well this makes me sound like I am nuts.. But.. PETA has made it clear that is their plan and it is working. Slowly, but surely. Page by page of slipping in new rules and laws for everyone. We all must suffer because of a select few.. I won’t ever agree with that mentality. I like my freedom. It’s why I live in the United States.
The problem with law makers is that they feel like they have to make new laws on a regular basis until we are no longer a free people.
So I say.. EDUCATION is the key to putting puppy mills out of business, not fines, mandatory micro chipping, making sure fluffy doesnt have more then 1 litter a year… WHO IS GOING TO POLICE THAT anyway??? Are we going to have tax payer paid puppy mill poilce and pet dealer cops?
[...] support HB 1468, there are many people and organizations that do not. In response to my blog entry Indiana HB 1468 Yes. . . or No? a breeder named Kim has raised several good points in opposition to my view point. I feel that [...]
Excercise 5 « Shionsann’s Blog said this on April 8, 2009 at 7:00 pm |
[...] on HB 1468 In Indiana HB 1468 Yes. . . or No, Mr. Newlin raised some valid points about HB 1468, particularly about the sale of 5 or more dogs. [...]
Observations on HB 1468 « Shionsann’s Blog said this on May 2, 2009 at 9:03 pm |