Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Deere 4440 cab tractor racked up $18,000 at farm retirement auction
Indiana legislature passes bills for ag land purchases, broadband grants
Make spring planting safety plans early to avoid injuries
Michigan soybean grower visits Dubai to showcase U.S. products
Scientists are interested in eclipse effects on crops and livestock
U.S. retail meat demand for pork and beef both decreased in 2023
Iowa one of the few states to see farms increase in 2022 Ag Census
Trade, E15, GREET, tax credits the talk at Commodity Classic
Ohioan travels to Malta as part of US Grains Council trade mission
FFA members learn about Australian culture, agriculture during trip
Timing of Dicamba ruling may cause issues for 2024 planting
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
Contentious Puppy Mill Bill is anything but warm and fuzzy

Let me state at the outset that I am a dog person. As I write this, there are two dogs curled up at my feet. Actually, the 10 month old Border Collie is trying to sit on my lap. He thinks that when I put my hand on the keyboard it is a sign to leap on my lap and lick my face. This makes writing difficult since his 40 pound body covers up the computer screen.

This is important background to have since I am writing about legislation currently before Indiana lawmakers that deals with dog breeding. The bill would require people to register as breeders if they have more than 20 adult female dogs capable of breeding.
The bill also would require those who sell at least 500 dogs a year to register as commercial dog brokers. Brokers and breeders would pay annual registration fees to help fund state inspections. The legislation has generated tremendous media coverage and evoked strong emotions on both sides of the issue. It has also made livestock farmers very nervous.

Known in the media as the Puppy Mill Bill, the legislation is the first effort by the radical animal activist organization HSUS to flex its political muscle in Indiana.

Abuse by some dog breeding operations has been the subject of local television investigative reports over the past few years.
Two female lawmakers from large urban centers have been sponsors of the legislation that, while purported as a measure to save puppies, has serious consequences as it changes the legal definition of animal cruelty and neglect. This may set the stage for future HSUS efforts to regulate the livestock industry.

In the Senate version of the bill, dog breeders would have to provide their dogs with cages large enough for them to move inside and give them a chance for exercise at least once a day. They also could not keep a dog in a wire cage unless the dog had room to move off the wire floor.

The House-passed version of the proposal would limit the number of dogs breeders could have to no more than 30 female adult dogs that are not spayed. The House version also outlined specific standards of care - such as providing dogs with sanitary conditions, light and ventilation.

All of this sounds perfectly reasonable and humane, thus lawmakers are having a hard time standing in opposition to these bills.

The devil, however, is in the details. As Bob Kraft with Indiana Farm Bureau pointed out to me, the legislation allows veterinarians the right to turn in suspected cases of animal abuse to local law enforcement. So, if a vet recommends an expensive procedure on your dog and you as the owner decide not to proceed with it, the vet could turn you in for animal cruelty.

Another concern is that the legislation puts most of the enforcement of the new regulation on the Board of Animal Health. Indiana has an outstanding BOAH, but this would be an entire new area for them to oversee. It remains unclear if the legislation would provide adequate funding to pay for the increased regulation of dog breeding facilities in the state.

More seriously, the legislation blurs the legal lines between what is a “pet” and what is “livestock.” This is just the kind of tactic a group like HSUS will use to begin to apply pet standards to livestock operations and is a clear and present danger for Indiana agriculture.

This should serve as a warning to livestock producers as to what can happen when bad operators continue to operate. For years, pet stores did not ask questions about how the puppies they bought were raised.

Consumers, too, just assumed those cute cuddly furry bundles of energy had been raised in humane surroundings.

Breeders deserve this situation because they were not proactive in getting bad actors out of the business. Failing to write their own regulations, the HSUS is now doing it for them.

The bill has passed both the House and Senate and, after a conference committee, will arrive on the desk of Gov. Daniels. If the governor really believes in the growth and future of the Indiana livestock sector as he has proclaimed for the past four years, he will veto the legislation.

While I would like to see this happen, I am not optimistic that it will occur.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with questions or comments for Gary Truitt may write to him in care of this publication.

4/15/2009