Notorious for factory farms and hunting season, Midwesterners are often taken to the chopping block on animal rights issues. Sometimes the accusations are founded. And sometimes they are not. But in the case of pet mills, Midwesterners are hardly cold-hearted killers.

Recently, Nebraskans have been up in arms over proposed legislation that would take funding away from inspections of commercial pet breeding facilities. Though the cut, proposed by State Sen. Tom Carlson of Holdrege, would free up $419,000 over two years, over 800 Nebraskans called in to say they were concerned that animals would suffer an unspoken expense.

Prior to 2007, the current legislation (which requires mandatory testing of all 700 pet boarding and breeding facilities ) was preceded by a law that required inspection only on a case-by-case basis, in the event of a complaint. Carlson’s proposal would return Nebraska to the pre-2007 conditions. Admittedly, he said that because of the budget, it was an issue of choosing the welfare of “people over pets.” But he won’t have to choose because Monday’s vote saw the proposal struck down. So Nebraskans get their way, and though the budget will continue to suffer, the hope is that fewer animals will.

But it’s not that Carlson is heartless; he’s merely trying to find a solution between a rock and hard place.  He’s also not the only one confronted by decisions surrounding humane treatment of animals. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill this year that would have put a cap (50 total) on the number of unsterilized animals a person can own. The idea, of course, was to discourage inhumane treatment of animals in breeding scenarios that run rampant and unregulated (like pet mills). But Schwarzenegger said the measure was too extreme, and ran the risk of criminalizing “the lawful activities of reputable breeders, pet stores, kennels, and charitable organizations engaged in raising service and assistance dogs.”

But are all those Schwarzenegger listed really free of blame?  It depends on how you look at it. According to a report on various animal welfare regulations throughout the U.S., the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) mandates “standards of care for certain animals with regard to their housing, handling, sanitation, nutrition, water, veterinary services, and protections from extreme weather.” But the problem lies in the vagueness of the qualifier–”some” means exactly that. Dogs, cats, non-human primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits are in the clear, but cold-blooded animals are not.

Moreover, the report says, the laws do not protect animals from “mistreatment, neglect, and improper handling.” Probably most significant is that retail pet stores are not considered animal dealers under AWA. These loopholes in current laws blur the line between legitimate and illegitimate organizations.

Considering the reaction to Carlson’s proposal, it’s no surprise that Nebraska is the only state in the U.S. that requires pet shops to provide training to their employees on the appropriate care of animals. But what about the other 49 states? Moreover, pet stores who purchase animals illegitimately from pet mills are a major component of the cycle of cruelty.  So whether they’re harming animals in their possession is not always the only issue at hand–by the time animals reach pet stores, the damage could have already been done, and the pet store played a complicit role.

Nonetheless, the issue returns again to budget.  Implementing laws, training, and programs for pet stores costs money, and that has to come from somewhere. Policing pet mills is another undertaking all together. Will tax payers step up to the plate, putting money where their protest signs are?  Only time will tell.

To learn more about animal welfare and what you can do to help, go here.