‘Puppy mills’ need regulation

Opinion

Related Photos

Discussion

April 16, 2009

Anonymous The Kokomo Tribune Thu Apr 16, 2009, 08:07 PM EDT

The two most emotionally charged words in the Indiana General Assembly this session aren’t “property taxes” or “school funding.”

The two words are “puppy mills.”

There are an estimated 800 to 1,500 operations in Indiana that produce pups for sale, estimates state Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond. The only oversight group for commercial breeders is the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which registers those who sell to pet stores. Only 92 Hoosier breeders are registered.

Lawson’s House Bill 1468 would ban abusive mills and regulate commercial breeders. Initially, the bill would have allowed a person to breed 10 litters a year before being classified as a “commercial breeder” who would have to be licensed by the state and subject to inspections. Commercial breeders would be those who have 20 or more breeding females or those not spayed.

State laws for animal cruelty would also be easier to enforce under her original proposal.

But the bill has been dogged by changes as it goes through the Statehouse. Smart-thinking legislators aren’t going to be perceived as voting against the bill, but they’re more than willing to tinker with it. The Senate stripped some references to neglect and limits on the number of females that could be bred. A compromise between the Senate and House has to be reached by a conference committee by April 29 before heading to the governor.

The bill arises through efforts by the Humane Society of the United States in 33 states to put a leash on the dog breeding industry. And that’s OK with us.

Indiana cannot allow dogs to be bred in kennels with deplorable conditions.

The American Kennel Club has asked for opposition to the bill, saying that a limit on the number of dogs that an irresponsible owner has will not make him or her a better owner. The AKC encourages stronger cruelty language and an enforcement to cover all dog owners. By limiting the number of dogs for a breeder, there is a sense that breeders would be forced to send additional dogs to shelters. We think good breeders are more responsible and will ensure that their dogs will be placed with responsible owners.

Even the Indiana Farm Bureau has chimed in. They note that the bill worries livestock producers because the Humane Society has an ‘anti-meat’ and ‘anti-livestock’ agenda. The next step, they fear, is regulating the treatment of animals at livestock farms. They note that using the term “puppy mill” is a pejorative term used by those who opposed commercial dog breeding.

Anytime there’s a public discussion of intolerable conditions surrounding the rearing of a pet, the emotions flow. That is the case here.

The bill may not specifically solve the problem of reckless individual dog breeders and it doesn’t address conditions in shelters and rescue organizations.

But it begins to address the concerns of thousands of dog lovers in this state and particularly in the Madison County community. Dirty, overcrowded kennels and animal abuse do not produce good pets. Those conditions have created the term “puppy mill” even though we know there are decent and respectable breeders.

It is only reasonable that the legislature reach a compromise that penalizes animal cruelty and protects animals from careless breeders.

Text Only | Photo Reprints

Opinion

White shouldn’t return to office
The issue: The conviction of Indiana’s secretary of state.

Our view: Charlie White’s ouster from office should be permanent.

February 9, 2012
Editorial - Feb. 8, 2012: Grand success for Indianapolis
The issue: The Super Bowl.

Our view: Indianapolis left a great impression on thousands of visitors.

February 8, 2012
Letters to the Editor: Feb. 8, 2012
As Hoosiers celebrate the conclusion of a truly remarkable Super Bowl experience, there is even more good news that should fill us with pride. More Indiana students are graduating from high school than ever before.

February 8, 2012
Which religions will we include?
The Indiana Senate last week approved a bill that would allow public schools to teach creationism, as long as they include theories from multiple religions.

February 6, 2012 1 Photo
If you say so
In an opinion piece we published Thursday, state Rep. Mike Karickhoff announced why he voted against “right-to-work” legislation. His reason: The community told him to.

February 5, 2012
Cheers and jeers - Saturday, Feb. 4, 2012
Karickhoff acted ‘cowardly’

The Rev. Robin Wentworth Mayer and Horst G. Mayer of Kokomo send the Jeer for state Rep. Mike Karickhoff’s silence during the “right-to-work” debate:

“Mr. Karickhoff, for someone who’s new to office, you’ve certainly learned the art of talking out of both sides of your mouth.

February 3, 2012
Let’s drug test our lawmakers
Perhaps it’s appropriate that a measure passed by the Indiana House this week would ask not only welfare recipients but Indiana lawmakers to consent to a drug test.

February 3, 2012
Editorial - Feb. 2, 2012: Peru delivers a message
The issue: Peru’s collection of $20,000 last year from property owners who failed to keep their yards mowed.

Our view: Aggressive enforcement can help a city’s finances, but the benefits go beyond dollars and cents.

February 2, 2012
Karickhoff: Reason behind my ‘right-to-work’ vote
There is no doubt the “right-to-work” debate has brought mixed emotions, not only to our state but District 30 as well. There were only a handful of House Republicans who did not vote in support of this legislation. Let me explain why I felt it was necessary for me to vote in opposition to right to work.

February 2, 2012
Heinig: ‘Right-to-work’ law to arouse continued resistance
I wouldn’t call Gov. Mitch Daniels a charismatic leader, but he does possess some leadership skills. If he didn’t, he couldn’t have brought us this far along the happy trail to his economic Valhalla.

February 2, 2012
More Opinion Headlines

Opinion

Search Results

Related Photos

Discussion

‘Puppy mills’ need regulation

Site Map

Contact Us