Tuesday, February 17, 2009


Susan Lowder, Downhome Harriers, contacted us about Indiana House Bill 1468, which is being fast tracked through the Indiana State Assembly, disguised as an anti-animal cruelty bill. It will, in fact, make it extremely difficult to even show in Indiana. You can read the whole ugly thing at http://www.in.gov/legislative.

We sent the following to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and 54 members of the Indiana House of Representatives. We encourage you to contact the Governor and as many of the house members as you can. (We won’t get into the tedious cut and paste process we used). Feel free to borrow from our ideas and words, but do put your own thoughts in to it too.
I write a blog about dog shows. A reader of mine has alerted me to the subject bill currently under your consideration. Before you saddle you constituents with unnecessary requirements, I ask you to consider the following:

  • This past weekend Indianapolis hosted one of the country’s largest dog shows. This show brought several thousand exhibitors, vendors, and spectators. This bill would make it virtually impossible for out of state exhibitors to come and spend their money in your cash strapped state. This weekend’s shows were but four of the dozens of shows held in your state each year.
  • Limits on hobby breeders (and this bill will limit hobby breeders) has a ripple effect on the pet economy which according to a recent CNBC special is a $43B a year industry. Whatever Indiana’s share of this is, it is income your state can ill afford to lose.
  • States and communities that have such legislation have incurred unnecessary administrative costs. The sponsors of this bill that have told you that this is self funded have mislead you. San Mateo County California (South of San Francisco, where else?) has never been able to recoup costs in the over 20 years since passing such legislation.
  • Thirty of the AKC registered breeds have less than 200 registrations a year, making them more endangered than Polar Bears, Gorillas, or Grey Whales. These breeds include the Sussex Spaniel, one of which just won the Westminster Dog Show, and the American Foxhound, a breed created by our first President, George Washington. These restrictions will eliminate the rare breeds produced in your state.
This bill will not prevent unethical people from exploiting animals, but it will contribute to the loss of income to your state and impede many of your constituents’ ability to own and keep the dog of their choice.


  1. Great letter and thank you for sending it. We ALL need to stay on top of legislation. The ARs want to end pet ownership, not just breeding. "One generation and out" is their motto and unless ALL of us wake up and pay attention and ACT, they will win.

  2. This is completely inaccurate information. Reading the actual bill would clarify the misinformation. Inhumane treatment of animals is wrong with puppy mills being one of the worst. If you are a responsible breeder you shouldn't have issue with the actual truth of this bill.

    There seems to be quite a bit of misinformation out there. A person selling more than 5 dogs and fewer than 10 litters must only keep a record of the sales for 2 years as described below.

    The bill does not limit the hobby breeder (pet dealer in this bill)from selling more than 5 puppies a year, nor does it put housing restrictions on anyone who is not a "Commercial breeder"
    (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.)

    Here is the link to the bill:

    This is exactly what it says in regards to anyone selling more than 5 dogs but less than 10 litters:


    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.

    Part of bill relating to this definition:

    Sec. 1. A pet dealer must maintain a log containing the:
    (1) name;
    (2) address;
    (3) city; and
    (4) state; of the breeder and broker, if applicable, that provided each puppy sold by
    the pet dealer. The pet dealer must retain the log for at least two (2)
    Sec. 2. A pet dealer must maintain veterinary records of every animal sold by the pet dealer. The pet dealer must retain the veterinary
    records of every animal sold or offered for sale by the pet dealer for at least two (2) years.
    Sec. 3. A pet dealer shall make the breeder log described in section 1 of this chapter available to law enforcement officials.

    Sec. 4. A pet dealer shall make the veterinary records described in section 2 of this chapter available to purchasers or prospective purchasers.

  3. I have ten years of experience writing and interpreting legislation with the US Department of Justice. I did read the legislation.

    This legislation gives the state the right to establish regulations to control the transportation of all animals (wild and domestic) in and out of the state, denies hobby breeders the right to confront their accusers in civil court (essential with the AR crazies out there) and authorizes electrocution as humane destruction of animals. Shall I continue? This is poorly written, unenforceable legislation. I do not need the state to protect me from unscrupulous breeders or AR crazies.

    Bottom line, Indiana, nor any other state, needs to be writing legislation that impedes commerce. The marketplace will weed out these people and the civil courts are there for this reason. We need government to stay out of our businesses, our pocketbooks, and our bedrooms.

  4. BRAVO! I recently tried to get people to act on proposed legislation in my state (via a post on a breed list) and I am still singed from the flames I got!

  5. I don't understand why they just won't leave us alone. For the most part (most of us) aren't doing anything wrong. My dogs have better lives than some people around where I live. I do know they eat better than I do. ;-)

  6. I commend you on your letter. We have also sent letters. I am so tired of hear about how this is law is to get rid of "Puppy Mills". We all ready have laws to do that. And those with the lack of knowledge don't relize that anyone that breeds more then one breed of dogs could go over 10 litters. It takes till a dog is around 2 years old before a breeder will know if it qualifies, health wise for a breeder. Good breeders do not throw away their retired dogs, they will keep them to let them live out thier lives. All of whick would cause them to be a commercial breeder. I don't know of any that are making that big a profit to go in and make all those changes to become commercial. This law is to get rid of puppy mills, when I read the requirement for commercial, it sounds to me just like another type of "Puppy Mill".

    My dogs have large fenced in yards that I have to take a riding mower in to mow. The smallest is 18' x 25', for 2 22lb dogs. If all these people that make their claim to seeing and saving puppies puppy mills would report them, instead they are yes men when a law comes along. They need to go meet the larger breeders, they help the shelter, help train other peoples dogs, and are involed with other dog.

    "Pet Dealer", I can see this causing puppy dumping. People that have accident mutt puppies that before would take and try to just sell pups for a little bit of money to recoupe the cost of food, and find them homes will now be dump the pups since they now would not put money into vet care(shots), and have to keep records on a mutt.

    In 2002 Indiana's pet market was a $1B market. If this law passes many breeder will quit breeding. Which will cause a trickle down effect many other IN businesses. IN can't afford this.

  7. Bravo, Billy!
    We in Florida are also battling a bill; Florida House Bill HB 451 - Sterilization of Dogs and Cats and the companion Senate Bill SB 992 - Dogs and Cats/Sterilization. Any assistance to get the word out is greatly appreciated.