Thanks for this article

(Jefferson City, MO) — On a day of dizzying legislative speed, Gov. Jay Nixon signed two pieces of legislation aimed at modifying regulations on the state’s dog breeders.

As part of a political deal worked out between the governor and the legislature, Nixon started his day Wednesday by signing Senate Bill 113, legislation passed by the House and Senate last week in response to Proposition B, the so-called “puppy mill cruelty prevention act” passed by voters in November.

Later in the day, the legislature passed another bill on the matter, Senate Bill 161, which alters the law addressed in Senate Bill 113. Senate Bill 161 was brokered in negotiations between the governor’s office, legislators, the state Department of Agriculture, dog breeders and animal rights groups.

Elements of the work already accomplished by the General Assembly in SB 113 can be seen in the text of the SB161 compromise. For instance, provisions remain to increase license fees to support Missouri’s Operation Bark Alert, which targets problematic breeders. And gone is the reference to puppy mills. The law is now known as the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act.

Missouri Puppy Mill Dogs Suffer in Protest

But some major changes are evident, as well, including provisions to expand the cage sizes of breeding dogs, doubling the space mandated by current regulations for existing facilities by Jan. 1, 2012, and providing “constant and unfettered access to an attached outdoor run.” Cage sizes in any new construction are to be three times as large, according to the compromise.

After about an hour of noontime debate, most of which featured House Ag Policy Committee Chair Tom Loehner, R-Koeltztown, explaining the the new bill’s details and the deal by which the legislature was abiding, the House passed the bill by a 108-42 margin.

“Does it put some added burden on the breeders? Yes it does,” said Loehner during floor debate. “But it allows them a time to decide whether they want to stay in business and do a good job. And if they don’t, then they can get out of the business.”

Little opposition was voiced during the debate. Only Rep. Margo McNeil, D-St. Louis, rose to speak against the legislation, saying the voters had spoken and it was her duty to support them.

“I think this legislation is going to improve things, however, I made a pledge to my voters that I would not overturn the will of the voters,” said McNeil, who’s district voted heavily in favor of Proposition B.

“This is a Missouri solution to a complex issue,” said Nixon speaking to a group of about 50 reporters, legislators and bill supporters. “Each of the leaders here today shares a common belief that agriculture is the backbone of Missouri’s economy. Responsible, professional, dog breeders are a vital part of our agriculture industry.”

The governor defended the speed with which the legislation moved through the process.

“I think this is an issue that requires action…now,” Nixon said. “I certainly think that if there are animals that are being mistreated or malnourished, that we shouldn’t wait until August 28th (when legislation traditionally becomes law) to get that problem solved.”

Critics continue to contend that the legislation passed in the last week and signed by the governor does away with Proposition B and the people’s vote to protect dogs in the state. Nixon strongly disagrees.

“But for the people of the state voting on this, we wouldn’t be here today,” Nixon said. “Their votes fundamentally changed a discussion that was going on in our state and played a vital role in getting this to the finish line.”

Then House then voted to pass the legislation with an emergency clause that makes the new law effective immediately upon the governor’s signature. The emergency clause passed with one vote to spare after House Minority Leader Mike Talboy, R-Kansas City, called into question the emergency clause’s effect on the ability for the public to challenge the new law by referendum.

As fast as the House went through the legislation, the Senate moved even faster, voting once on the bill, then reconsidering after some Senators claimed they were confused about what they were actually voting on, then voting in favor of the legislation again by a margin of 24-10, all in about an hour. The Senate accepted the emergency clause 32-1. The bill is now heading for the governor’s desk.

“If you really care about the animals, on which ever side you are on, this goes into effect right now,” said Sen.Mike Parson, R-Bolivar, who championed both versions of the Prop B revisions in the Senate. “We can do something about the mistreatment of animals in the state and you can do it today.”

Barely two hours later, Nixon hosted a bill signing ceremony in his office for Senate Bill 161.

Because what is taking place in Missouri could have a rippling effect across the country (Ohio included!), I felt it’s important to keep you updated on the latest animal welfare developments relating to the recent compromise between state-level animal-welfare and agriculture groups over new restrictions on the now infamous Missouri Prop B and the state’s breeding operations…

DOG BREEDING COMPROMISE IS CRUMBLING

Barely a day old, and already Gov. Jay Nixon’s compromise on the contentious push to crack down on dog breeders showed signs of fraying Tuesday.

Nixon’s administration announced this week a compromise between animal welfare advocates and dog breeders that strengthens current rules but takes out the most contentious portion of an initiative approved by voters in November.

But on Tuesday evening, more than 60 lawmakers from the House and Senate, as well as representatives of the agriculture industry, sent a letter telling Nixon they want him to sign a piece of legislation already on his desk that would roll back the proposition altogether.

Now, instead of avoiding the most acute political quandary of his career, it appears the governor could be squaring up for a fight with the Legislature over so-called “puppy mills.”

“The governor’s involvement would have been helpful had it been earlier,” said state Sen. Robert N. Mayer, R-Dexter.

It’s unclear how Nixon will approach this potential setback. The governor issued a response Tuesday saying he was “extremely encouraged that this broad coalition of legislative and industry leaders has endorsed our Missouri solution.”

Only what Nixon has previously called his “Missouri solution” was the compromise he announced on Monday – not the bill lawmakers sent to his desk earlier in the month.

The back and forth represents even more tumult in a fight that has pitted rural and urban lawmakers against one another, and thrust national animal welfare groups into the political spotlight in Missouri.

The Humane Society of the United States poured over $2 million into a successful November ballot initiative, Proposition B, that targeted the hundreds of dog breeding facilities in Missouri.

While the law takes a year to go into effect, rural legislators on both sides of the aisle – concerned that the regulations would lead to restrictions on raising farm animals – wasted no time pushing a bill to the governor’s desk that would have repealed much of the proposition.

Instead of signing or vetoing the bill, Nixon’s agricultural advisers announced a deal Monday that pleased both members of animal welfare groups and dog breeders, hammering out an accord that strengthens current rules, but takes out the ban on keeping more than 50 breeding dogs.

The compromise still must be approved by the Missouri Legislature, a task that grew tougher on Tuesday. Among those signing the letter urging Nixon to approve the bill dismantling Proposition B is House Speaker Steve Tilley, who controls the flow of legislation in the Legislature’s lower chamber.

Even so, Nixon’s compromise brought together opposing sides of the issue, which could buoy its chances of passing. The agreement was signed by the Missouri Humane Society and the Missouri Pet Breeders Association, as well as other state organizations advocating for both animal rights and the dog breeding industry.

Nixon called the deal “a Missouri solution to this Missouri issue,” a thinly veiled jab at the Humane Society of the United States and another national animal protection group, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, that supported Proposition B but did not sign onto the compromise pact.

But although neither outfit is based in Missouri, both have demonstrated fundraising might and political savvy. The committee formed to back Prop B collected more than $3.8 million. The group netted endorsements from area celebrities – Cardinals skipper Tony La Russa – and political luminaries – former Republican U.S. Sen. John Danforth.

When rumblings began that state lawmakers would seek to overturn Prop B, the campaign purchased billboard space around Jefferson City. In January, the Humane Society’s national president, Wayne Pacelle, signed up as a lobbyist in Missouri.

This afternoon, the group has arranged a rally in Jefferson City seeking to show opposition to the compromise.

“We have a lot of concerns,” said Barbara Schmitz, a spokeswoman for the Humane Society of the U.S. “It falls short of what the voters approved.”

In addition to capping the number of breeding dogs, the proposition approved by voters set new standards for exercise, medical care and cage size. Many of those restrictions are relaxed under the compromise. Under current regulations, breeders’ cages need to be only 6 inches bigger than the dog on each side. The agreement would require twice that amount of space by Jan. 1, 2012, and three times that amount of space by Jan. 1, 2016.

Constant access to an outdoor run also would be required, though the Department of Agriculture could waive the requirement.

Still, the absence of a cap on the number of dogs allowed – which would mean large-scale breeding operations could remain in business – has left the U.S. Humane Society sticking with the original language that voters approved in November.

The national Humane Society has already taken the early steps for a second ballot measure next year that would make it harder for the Legislature to overturn future referenda. Schmitz would also not rule out legal action.

“All options are on the table,” she said.

In addition to exposing the familiar divisions between urban and rural lawmakers, the dog breeding fracas has revealed a less likely split between the national Humane Society and its local branch.

The Humane Society of Missouri – an independent organization – has embraced the compromise, unlike its national counterpart.

“We felt it behooved us since we live in Missouri to see if we can find a compromise,” said Robert W. Hull, chairman of the Missouri Humane Society. “When you compromise, you aren’t going to get everything you want.”

Hull insisted there was no ill will between the national agency and its local counterpart. However, the local Humane Society works closely with the Missouri Department of Agriculture, both for their rescue missions around the state and the Humane Society’s shelter on Macklind Avenue in St. Louis.

Not signing the compromise would have tested a sound relationship, Hull said.

“We are subject to their regulations,” Hull said. “They license us.”

Most of Missouri’s statewide officials have attempted to stay out of the dog-breeding fight, but on Tuesday Attorney General Chris Koster signaled his support for the compromise plan.

“If the Legislature chooses to support this solution, the attorney general’s office will be ready on day one,” Koster said, promising to dedicate a full-time attorney to prosecute violations, as well as establish a hotline to field complaints.

Still, some area dog lovers greeted the news with a measure of ambivalence.

“I don’t think there should ever be a compromise in the humane treatment of man’s best friend,” said Randy Grim, founder of Stray Rescue of St. Louis. “It bothers me. I think the thing that happened was rural farmers feared they would be next.”

But, he added, “it’s better than nothing.”

Grim also noted that if Nixon was attempting to win over animal advocates, he had a funny way of showing it. A day after the dog breeding compromise was announced, the governor’s office released a photo of Nixon turkey hunting in the woods of south-central Missouri.

Nixon felled a 24-pound gobbler, with one-inch spurs and a 10-inch beard.

Marlon A. Walker of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.

NIXON HELPS CRAFT PROP B COMPROMISE, BUT ITS FUTURE IS UNSURE

For both sides in the battle over Proposition B, the clock is now ticking.

On Monday, many agricultural and animal-welfare groups announced that they had reached an agreement that “will strengthen requirements for the care and treatment of dogs and protect Missouri agriculture.”

The agreement is in the form of a measure aimed at superceding a controversial bill — SB 113 — that does away with most of the provisions in Proposition B, which imposes restrictions on dog breeders. The proposition was narrowly approved by Missouri voters last fall but is opposed by rural legislators.

Approved by both chambers, SB 113 was formally placed on Gov. Jay Nixon’s desk Monday, as well. Nixon now has 15 calendar days to decide whether to veto the bill, sign it or allow it to go into effect without his signature.

Nixon announced Monday that he backed the agreement proposing the alternate measure and that he and his staff had been involved in helping to bring it about. Nixon, a Democrat, is running for re-election in 2012; he’d like to avoid getting stuck between rural voters who opposed Proposition B and the suburban and urban voters who backed it.

“Over the past week, my administration has been working closely with folks on every side of this issue to reach an agreement that respects the will of the voters, protects dogs and allows responsible breeders to earn a living in our state,” the governor said in a statement.

“Throughout this process, I have met personally with representatives of Missouri’s major animal-welfare and agricultural organizations and with leaders on this issue in both the House and the Senate. The agreement that was signed today upholds the intent of the voters, protects dogs and ensures that Missouri agriculture will continue to grow. I look forward to continuing to work with these leaders as we move this proposal through the legislative process as swiftly and efficiently as possible.”

A Nixon spokesman sidestepped questions as to whether Nixon planned to veto SB 113. Instead, press secretary Sam Murphey said that the governor wants the alternate bill to “supercede SB 113.”

Nixon got a boost Tuesday when Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, a fellow Democrat also running for re-election, endorsed the agreement as well.

“If the legislature chooses to support this solution, the Attorney General’s Office will be ready on day one to aggressively enforce Missouri’s new dog-breeding laws,” Koster said in a statement.  “Our intention is to add new prosecutorial resources to Operation Bark Alert, and we will continue to work aggressively to change Missouri’s reputation to a state that respects the humane treatment of these animals.”

While Nixon decides, these poor dogs suffer in a puppy mill, or large-scale breeding operation in Missouri.

He also promised to designate an assistant attorney general to focus full time “on prosecuting wrongdoers. which Koster estimated would total 100 cases a year.

Koster also pledged to set up a toll-free hotline to collect complaints via telephone, and to feature a tip link on his official website.

Closer look at compromise

The compromise:

• Repeals the limit of 50 dogs that a breeder can own. Parson’s bill also takes out this provision from Prop B. This is one of the most controversial changes.
• Changes the definition of “adequate breeding cycles.” Under Prop B, dogs could not breed more than twice every 18 months. The compromise changes that to what’s “appropriate for the species, age, and health of the dog,” according to a veterinarian. Parson’s legislation also includes this change.
• Phases in the requirement for bigger cages over several years.
• Specifies veterinarian care. Under Prop B, a licensed veterinarian must examine the dogs at least once a year; it also requires prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian. Parson’s legislation loosens that to “at least two personal visual inspections annually by a licensed veterinarian.” The compromise reverts back to the Prop B language, except it places the word “serious” in front of the phrase “illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian.”
• Increases to $2,500 from $500 a year the maximum fee for obtaining a license for a breeding facility. Parson’s bill also includes this provision.

Both measures would require breeders to maintain all veterinary records and sales records for the most recent previous two years. The records shall be made available to the state veterinarian, a state or local animal welfare official, or a law enforcement agent upon request.

Support for compromise may not be solid

In any case, the alternative bill apparently would still need to be approved by the Senate and House quickly and placed on Nixon’s desk before SB 113′s 15 days run out. If Nixon vetoes the bill, the legislature would have until May 13, when this session ends, to override a veto.

Any override effort may be hampered by the fact that SB 113 did not pass with a veto-proof majority.

Yet it’s also unclear how solid the support is for the proposed alternate bill.

For example: State Sen. Mike Parson, R-Bolivar, who sponsored SB 113, is listed as one of the compromise’s backers.

“Growing Missouri agriculture and protecting dogs are both important priorities, and this agreement is a win on both fronts,” Parson said in a release announcing the agreement.

But Parson said in an interview that he wanted the governor first to sign SB 113 into law — and then sign the proposed alternative, should the legislature pass it.

Parson said the main differences between his bill and the new agreement are the types of veterinarian care required and the square footage of the cages confining the animals.

Parson said that the agreement would be “dead” if Nixon vetoed SB 113.

“If we’re truly going to get this done, we’re going to know before this veto happens,” Parson said. “I hope the compromise is worked out. I hope everyone at the table can get it done. You’ve got to get it through the [legislature] in a short-term period of time, which is a very difficult process to do. We’re going to work for that, if that’s what the coalition decides.”

“But I think to say that we’re going to veto [my bill] right off the bat to do this, I don’t think we’re going to want to use this as a political game,” Parson added. “And I hope that nobody’s doing that.”

One of the agreement’s backers is Kathy Warnick, president of the Humane Society of Missouri. “The Humane Society of Missouri believes this landmark agreement will ensure for decades to come what the majority of Missourians want – humane standards of care for Missouri’s breeding dogs,” said Warnick in a statement.

“The agreement upholds the primary intent of Missouri voters concerning the treatment of dogs in breeding facilities and proposes new legislative language that provides a higher standard of care than currently stipulated in Missouri law,” she added.

But later Monday, within hours of the announcement of the agreement, national Humane Society president Wayne Pacelle was among a coalition announcing its opposition.

“The will of the people should be respected, and this deal falls far short of the animal-care standards that Missouri voters approved in Prop B,” Pacelle said. “We were never against the idea of compromise, but we are against the idea of capitulation.”

Ed Sayres, president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said, “We applaud Gov. Nixon and the Department of Agriculture for strengthening enforcement, but enforcement is meaningless without strong standards for the welfare of dogs. Missouri voters want to turn around the state’s reputation as the puppy mill capital of America, and the common-sense standards for dog breeding enacted with Prop B should not be jettisoned.”

Gregory Castle, chief executive of the Best Friends Animal Society, said, “We are disappointed that the compromises incorporated in the recently announced proposed legislation to amend the provisions of Prop B clearly fail to provide the protections for dogs in Missouri’s puppy mills that the citizens of the state wanted. We approve moves to strengthen enforcement, but Prop B’s improved standards for the humane treatment of these animals should not be discarded.”

Parson replied, “That’s a disappointing fact that people from [outside] the state of Missouri don’t even want to compromise when all the animal rights groups in Missouri are agreeing to this.”

Senate Majority Leader Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, said in a news conference he couldn’t comment on the agreement since he hasn’t seen the details. Asked if mid-April was an appropriate time for the governor to be proposing such an deal, Dempsey replied, “Earlier would have been helpful.”

“January, February, March,” Dempsey said, referring to times when the agreement would have been more useful.

“October, November of last year,” added Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer, R-Dexter.

One possibility is that the agreement’s proposed alternative could be placed onto another existing House bill seeking to overhaul Prop B, Dempsey said.  That bill is still in committee.

State Rep. Tom Loehner, R- Koeltztown, handled SB 113 in the House. He said he hopes that Nixon signs SB 113 into law, as well as the alternate measure.

“I don’t know if the passage of [SB 113l] brought one side closer to the table maybe, who knows?” Loehner said. But he acknowledged, “It’s a late date to try and get it all through.”

Ultimately, Loehner added, the fate of SB 113 hinges with Nixon. “It’s in his hands now.”

State Sen. John Lamping, R-Ladue, signaled Tuesday that he’s also cool to the compromise – and aappeared to side with Prop B supporters. Lamping also too a jab at the governor.

“I am disappointed that the will of the people was not followed by lawmakers,” Lamping said. “If, in fact, all stakeholders truly came together to reach the agreement, this may have some merit.  Unfortunately, leadership came too late.  The fact that the governor chose to wait until April 18 rather than work with all interested parties throughout the legislative session speaks to a lack of leadership.”

It was a rousing success this weekend at the Columbus Pet Expo in Columbus, Ohio for the Ban Ohio Dog Auctions case. Ban Ohio Dog Auctions, near the end, I would say gathered anywhere from 750 to 1,000 signatures on its petition. What petition you ask? Well it’s only one of Ohio’s most important proposed ballot initiatives for 2012. It’s the Ban Ohio Dog Auctions Act and it’s damn important. It’s downright vital. Vital to whom? To the thousands of precious puppy mill dogs who face the auction block in Holmes County, which should be named Hell Country for the atrocities that occur there once a month and day in and day out. (Holmes County is home to numerous Amish-run puppy mills.)

The dog auctions serve as a major distribution channel for buyers and sellers from 15 states, many of whom have long standing, repeated violations of the Animal Welfare Act and/or

Amish Millers Prepare for an Auction

have been convicted of animal cruelty.

Breeders who participate in the Ohio dog auctions are raising large numbers of dogs and puppies with profit as the primary motive for existence. Many of the puppies are found to be unhealthy, they’re not screened for genetic diseases, and they do not show resemblance to the breed standard, plus they lack good temperament. Nonetheless, multiple pet stores, like Petland for example, as well as big buyers from small family-owned pet stores come to these Ohio dog auctions to get puppies and dogs at a bargain price.

Click here to view inside a dog auction used by puppy mills…

The proposed Ban Ohio Dog Auctions Act was spearheaded by Ban Ohio Dog Auctions; it’s a citizen-backed initiative. The measure, similar in language to PA’s Statute 459-603, will establish a statute to the Ohio Dog Law making it illegal for anyone to auction or raffle a dog in the State of Ohio. It would also prohibit bringing dogs into the state for sale or trade that were acquired by auction or raffle elsewhere.

These ramifications were put into the bill because millers from all over the Eastern and Central US come to the Holmes County dog auctions, where there are about 400 dogs on the block per month. There is one dog auction a month in Holmes County right now.

Ohio dog auctions, like the ones revealed during a 2007 undercover investigation by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Best Friends Animal Society, are a symptom of the puppy mill industry. They are a tragic embarrassment to Ohio and its humane-minded citizens.

The proposed ballot initiative to ban the auctions is really a tactical maneuver, a one-two punch if you will. By taking away or banning the auctions, we are looking to hit the puppy millers where it hurts: their pockets. The ban will take away their primary source of funding, thereby reducing them to rubble. The millers will have nowhere to “showcase,” buy or sell their “wares,” the dogs. It was brilliantly crafted in this manner. Holmes County millers, who have become infamous in the state of Ohio, will have to turn to other means, like making direct connections with pet stores and other (Internet) buyers, which will take them LOADS more time, which they don’t want to do anyhow because it’s a suspicious activity. Millers across the state will be put into a horrible business position and will thereby be forced to shut down.

A crammed puppy mill

Click here to see the ABC news investigation into puppy mills. This video discusses the fact that many Ohio puppy mills are Amish-run, which comes as a surprise to many, many people.

All this being said, we are close to our goal. We need near 121,000 signatures and currently have about 85,000. We still have near six months to collect the remaining signatures that we need.

If you are a registered Ohio voter and want to sign the petition to get this on the 2012 ballot, email me at thoughtsfurpaws@gmail.com. I will direct you towards where you need to go to sign. Please let me know what county you live in in your email.

If you want to get involved with the movement and hold your own signature gathering event, come to one of ours, or perhaps attend the Humane Lobbying Day on April 6^th, which gives you the chance to sit down for a bit with your legislators and talk face to face, email me and I will put you in contact with the person running this fantastic campaign, Mary O’Connor Shaver.

To join the Ban Ohio Dog Auctions movement on Facebook, click here. To visit the website, click here.

To sign up for the aforementioned Humane Lobby Day, visit www.ohiocompanionanimallobbyday.com.

The law’s stiffest requirements cover breeding facilities with more than 50 dogs, subjecting them to more frequent inspections and increased minimum hours of staffing.

“Puppy mills” are the factory farms of dog breeding — big and, all too often, neglectful and cruel. Female dogs are frequently overbred in back-to-back heat cycles to the point that their bones break and their teeth fall out. Hundreds, even thousands, of breeding dogs and puppies can end up crammed into filthy cages, according to animal welfare advocates, who have made numerous undercover videos of some of the worst abusers across the country.

A pit bull-Labrador mixed breed that was rescued from Downey Shelter in Los Angeles. (Nancy Pastor / For The Times)

But like factory farms, puppy mills are perfectly legal. They are subject to Animal Welfare Act standards so minimal that even the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which enforces them and licenses facilities, urges operators to exceed the standards. Shutting them down is difficult. In Missouri, where there are more commercial dog breeding facilities than anywhere else in the country, a ballot proposition that limited facilities to 50 breeding dogs was approved by voters last year but is now in danger of being dismantled by the state’s Legislature. A California bill calling for similar size restrictions passed both houses of the Legislature but was vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2009. (He said that although he decried animal abuse, the bill went too far.)

If governments are having difficulty capping the number of animals a facility can handle, lawmakers can at least tighten oversight. That’s what the Los Angele

s County Board of Supervisors did this week when it approved an ordinance, championed by Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, that will more closely regulate anyone — breeders, groomers, operators of boarding kennels — housing more than just a few pets.
But the law’s stiffest requirements cover breeding facilities with more than 50 dogs, subjecting them to more frequent inspections by animal control officers, an extensive annual veterinary exam for each dog over 1 year old and increased minimum hours of staffing. (Facilities must be staffed 18 hours a day.) The law bans breeding of females under 1 year old. Three days before a dog gives birth, it must be separated from other adult dogs, provided with a nesting area to nurse and housed alone with its litter.

All animal facilities, no matter how big, must have working smoke detectors and fire suppression equipment. And all animals for sale must be microchipped or tattooed before they are sold or at 4 months old. “If we see sick animals, we want to be able to trace them back,” said Marcia Mayeda, the head of the county’s Department of Animal Care and Control, which is charged with enforcing the ordinance.

The new law is still not as strong as some animal welfare organizations would like. Dale Bartlett of the Humane Society of the United States notes that it doesn’t require that dogs rest between breeding cycles, though he says it is still a good and important ordinance.

The new regulations cover only unincorporated parts of Los Angeles County, an area that is not exactly a center of puppy mills. However, it was the discovery in 2008 of bad conditions, including severe overcrowding, at a facility in the Antelope Valley that spurred the creation of the county ordinance. There are currently six commercial facilities in rural areas, each with somewhere between 90 and 245 breeding females — and all of their puppies. So the number of animals affected is significant.

It’s doubtful that anyone intends to buy a puppy from a puppy mill when they go into a pet store, but animal welfare advocates contend that that is what happens. For the moment, it rests with local governments to tighten controls on large-scale commercial breeders. “Down the line we’re hoping that county legislators will look at this ordinance and say, ‘We can make this stronger,’ ” said Elizabeth Oreck, who runs the puppy mill initiative for Best Friends Animal Society.

For now, the county’s new law is a good move toward identifying and reforming neglectful breeding.

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

First, some background for those of you who may not know.

WHAT IS A PUPPY MILL?

While many people may be familiar with the term “puppy mill,” the industry and government regulators dismiss the horrors associated with them. Puppy mills are facilities which are licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture that mass-produce puppies for pet stores throughout the country and to emerging foreign markets. At present a USDA license is required for anyone with four or more “intact bitches” although federal officials are considering raising the number of animals held to as many as 60 without a USDA license. Puppies are subjected to horrific conditions from birth and during transport from breeder, to broker, to pet stores hundreds of miles from where their life began. The breeding “stock” suffers a constant misery living in small cramped cages often soiled with their own excrement.

A few Midwestern states are home to the largest concentration of puppy mills in the country, and Missouri is by far the worst offender. Many of the operators of these puppy mills hold other jobs and utilize mass-production methods to produce what they and government regulators consider an agricultural commodity. In a typical puppy mill, the dogs are fed in the morning and again in the evening. Cleaning, sanitation and general maintenance are addressed as time permits, usually during the weekend, if at all. Most of these facilities are in rural areas and are family operated to supplement a modest family income. In previous years USDA inspectors conducted at least one unannounced inspection per year at these facilities, however, federal authorities have recently adopted a risk based inspection program. Operators are given the opportunity to correct non-compliant items (technically violations of federal law) that are disclosed during the inspection. If upon re-inspection the violation or “non-compliant item” is not corrected, enforcement action should be taken in an effort to improve conditions at the facility. Inspection policies have deteriorated to such an extent that operators of these facilities can operate indefinitely with repeated disclosure of “non-compliant items.” The emphasis has dramatically shifted from the “welfare” of the animals to commerce. A factor that no doubt has contributed to this phenomenon is the decline in small family farms.

Humane organizations, animal advocacy groups and consumers are outraged at USDA’s lax enforcement of federal regulations as they have prompted substantial growth in the number of puppy mills over the past several years. To avoid the stigma of being called puppy mill facilities, many breeders invested thousands of dollars in facilities that surpassed USDA’s minimum standards. Unfortunately lax enforcement policies have allowed sub- or minimum-standard operators to compete and ultimately diminish profit margins for the better facility operators, forcing many of them out of business.

Today the average puppy mill will house between 75 and 150 breeding animals, most housed in hutch-style cages with wire floors. The fecal matter drops to the ground below and waste accumulates beneath the cage, providing a haven for flies and other vermin. Even with fairly prompt removal of waste, the ground becomes permeated with stench as the urine cannot be raked away. Dogs housed in indoor facilities endure an equally deplorable existence with ammonia vapors and odors permeating poorly ventilated buildings. Rodents, flies and other pests plague the animals almost constantly. Solid surfaces are supposed to protect the legs of puppies; however, as they mature and scout out their surroundings, feet and legs often fall through wire floors. The resulting injuries compound their misery. Their soft coats of fur become soiled with the fecal matter that didn’t drop through the cage, adding insult to injury.

At 8 weeks of age puppies are “harvested” and cleaned up for the trip to the broker. They are bathed to clean up feces and odors they have endured during their brief lives in the puppy mill. Pus is wiped from their sad and scared eyes just before they are shoved into whatever is convenient – with any luck an approved shipping container. Some will perish, and others will be rejected by the broker only to be held back for breeding stock. Many others will be killed for their lack of monetary value and some may even be sold for research. The survivors can be seen at your local pet store, but the emotional scars and irresponsible animal husbandry can bring misery into your home instead of anticipated joy.

If you have any compassion at all for the animals bred and raised under these miserable conditions, stay out of pet stores. Each puppy purchased from a pet store serves an industry with no conscience and virtually no enforcement by USDA. Thousands of unwanted animals of all ages and breeds are euthanized at shelters every day. Adopt and spay or neuter a shelter animal or rescued companion animal, and do your part to help end the plight of unseen thousands housed in puppy mills throughout the country.

Pet stores acquire their puppies from “puppy mills,” literal factories where breeding dogs live their entire lives cramped in filthy cages. While millions of forgotten dogs (and other animals) are killed in our nation’s shelters, the unfortunate dogs in puppy mills are forced to produce litter after litter until they die. Even though our nation’s shelters are overflowing with unwanted animals – an amazing twenty-five percent of which are purebred dogs – puppy mills continue to generate millions of dollars for the unscrupulous pet industry.

In an effort to break this tide of misery and death, IDA is targeting Petland, the nation’s largest pet store chain, and a major retailer of puppies, kittens, and other small animals such as rabbits and guinea pigs.

IDA has documented shipments of puppies to Petland stores – they operate an amazing 123 stores in the U.S. and 57 more foreign outlets – from large Midwestern puppy mill breeders and dealers. One Petland supplier, Do-Bo-Tri Kennels, recently surrendered over 140 puppies to authorities in Nashville, TN after the puppies had been left unattended overnight inside a vehicle with no air-conditioning. Charges against the driver were eventually dropped after the dealer agreed to relinquish custody of the puppies.

Puppies are routinely shipped overland by truck or by air as cargo, often traveling hundreds of miles to pet shops across the country. Injuries and fatalities en route to pet stores are common and deplorable, yet they pale in comparison to the conditions their parents endure until their death at the mills. The euthanasia of millions of animals at shelters due to a lack of adoptive families compounds the tragedy of mill animals enduring a miserable existence to satiate the demand for their offspring.

While the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for inspection and enforcement of regulations pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), conditions for animals at these federally licensed facilities range from bad to worse.

Do-Bo-Tri Kennels, a major supplier of Petland puppies, has been repeatedly charged with violations of the Animal Welfare Act.

IDA is looking for former or current employees and customers of Petland

Successful Petland Protest

who have information to share about the poor conditions in which their animals are kept.

Please write to IDA with information.

After 75 weeks of continuous Saturday protests, the Petland in St. Louis (located in Heritage plaza at Olive and Ross), closed on March 31, 2004. We hope this victory will inspire and motivate everyone to keep the Petland protests Campaign going nationwide.

While millions of forgotten animals are killed in our nation’s shelters, the unfortunate dogs in puppy mills are forced to produce litter after litter until they die. Stores that sell puppies acquire them from “puppy mills,” factories where breeding dogs live their entire lives cramped in filthy cages. Even though our nation’s shelters are overflowing with animals–an amazing twenty-five percent of whom are purebred–puppy mills continue to generate millions of dollars for the unscrupulous “pet” industry.

In an effort to break this tide of misery and death, IDA will continue targeting Petland, the nation’s largest pet store chain, and a major retailer of puppies, kittens, and other small animals such as rabbits and guinea pigs. IDA is seeking dedicated activists to organize campaigns against Petland in various cities.
If you are interested in joining this campaign, contact:

In Defense of Animals
Director of Investigations
In Defense of Animals
phone: (415) 388-9641
idainfo@idausa.org

Click here for Petland locations and campaign contacts.

The consequences of pet overpopulation are much too tragic to be simplified. The number of victims – unwanted homeless dogs and cats – is of such magnitude that it is time that society be made aware of the reality of this tragedy. The statistics tell the story.

Three to four million dogs and cats are killed in shelters across the United States every year. These staggering numbers don’t include the animals that die on our roads or from unreported animal abuse. Also not included are the animals that die after being sold to research laboratories from our shelters. During 1999, animal shelters in Ohio killed 196,831 dogs and cats. Only a small fraction of these animals are vicious because of owner mistreatment or illegal intentions.

Only a small fraction are terminally ill or too sick to be treated. The majority of these dogs and cats are healthy. Many can be treated and behavior problems eliminated. We are killing adoptable dogs and cats capable of giving and receiving love for many more years.

WHAT IS THE ROOT CAUSE?

1. People acquire cats and dogs from sources that perpetuate overpopulation. They buy from breeders and pet stores. 5,000 puppy mills breed more than 1/2 million dogs in deplorable conditions, most of which are shipped to pet stores. By buying from these sources we perpetuate the market. 25% of the animals in shelters are purebred. When a pet is purchased, a shelter animal dies.

2. Many pet owners who fail to spay and neuter their animals. Whether by intent or neglect, these dogs and cats reproduce. For every litter born, that many will die in a shelter. Many of these people are hobby and professional breeders, others are backyard breeders wanting their children to see the miracle of birth. Perhaps these people need to visit the killing room of a shelter to watch the tragedy of death.

3. People treat pets as disposable commodities. People simply surrender or abandon their animals instead of taking responsibility for them for their lifetime. Every day people walk into shelters and surrender animals for reasons as frivolous as the animal not matching their furniture anymore or we’re going on vacation and can’t afford to board – we’ll just get another dog when we come home. The number one excuse is moving – the owner doesn’t consider the animal important enough to find animal friendly housing. More excuses include – behavior problems, not enough time, can’t afford, and allergies.

A Dog in OSPCA's Current Care

In summary, failure to spay and neuter is the major cause, but how we acquire our dogs and cats and how long we keep them is also a contributing cause. For every animal killed – be it a dog, cat, pig, rabbit, or bird – there is a human outside the walls of the shelter responsible.

Ohio SPCA’s Position

• Don’t Breed or Buy – Adopt

• Keep Your Pets Safe at Home

• Spay and Neuter

And remember – pets are living creatures, capable of fear, love, pain, loneliness, and joy. They should never be considered disposable property, for they should be considered members of the family. Every companion animal must be loved and protected.

Ohio SPCA believes that no person should be breeding while dogs and cats are dying every single day. To find out more about puppy mills, pet stores, and how you can stop pet overpopulation, visit the web sites below.

This OSPCA Dog Has Hope!

In Defense of Animals
What is a Puppy Mill?
Prisoners for Profit

Pet Overpopulation Statistics

UPDATE 5: Start writing your acceptance speech! Pick out your formal wear (and your pet’s)!!

Planning with Dogtime for the 2011 Petties has begun. This year will be bigger, glitzier, and more fun!

More categories, more winners — all with your help. Watch for details!

We would be honored to be nominated for the Petties again this year but we won’t hold our breath as there are SO MANY FANTASTIC pet bloggies out there who deserve a nod!

Regardless, we can’t wait to see our friends from Dogtime, IAMS, PainePR, Helen Woodward Animal Center, FlatTyler, FlatSkeezix, PetSmart, Kyjen, Bissell, PawTalk, PawCurious, and LOTS more!

UPDATE 4: Hoping to quell a Twitter uprising, Tom said, “Give ‘em what they want!”

Two styles to choose from on the BlogPaws 2011 Badges page.

UPDATE 3: Yes, it’s Jan. 31 already. Don’t miss it!

Also, to nip the brewing Twitter revolution in the bud (@grouchypuppy, @dlsilver, @dancingdogblog, @vscook), working on providing special badges for returning BlogPaws Alums! Stay tuned!

UPDATE 2: Another reason to register early! The Sheraton is extending the special BlogPaws room rates for 3 days before AND after the conference, so you can plan to see some Washington DC sites, too. But only “subject to availability of guest rooms at the time of reservation” — so don’t wait!

Big plans, big doings, lotsa learning and lotsa fun!

So everyone get geared up! Its going to be fantastic!

Dear Animal Advocates,

There is a giant loophole in U.S. law concerning the federal oversight of large-scale commercial dog breeders (commonly known as puppy mills). Currently, breeders who sell to puppy brokers and pet stores have to be licensed by the USDA, while those who sell puppies directly to the public do not.

However, a new bill before the U.S. House of Representatives, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act, will bring all commercial dog breeders in the United States under federal oversight by requiring any breeder who sells or offers to sell more than 50 dogs annually to the public—including over the Internet—to be licensed and inspected. The bill will also require all licensed breeders to exercise every dog daily.

The PUPS Act has been introduced in past Congressional sessions, but has always timed out. We’ve been given another chance at enacting this extremely important humane legislation, which would improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of dogs nationwide.

What You Can Do
It is vital that members of Congress hear that puppy mill reform is important to their constituents. Please visit the ASPCA Advocacy Center to email your U.S. representative in Washington, D.C., and urge him or her to support and cosponsor the PUPS Act.

Thank you for your continued support of the ASPCA and our nation’s animals!

H.R. 835—Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act
Sponsors: Representatives Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Sam Farr (D-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA) and Don Young (R-AK)
ASPCA Position: Support

Action Needed: Use the email below to ask your federal legislators to support and cosponsor the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act!

On March 1, Representative Gerlach, along with Reps. Farr, Capps and Young, introduced the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act to bring all commercial dog breeders in the United States under federal oversight. Currently, only breeders who sell their dogs to puppy brokers or pet stores are required to be licensed and inspected by the USDA. If passed, the PUPS Act would require any breeder who sells or offers to sell more than 50 dogs annually directly to the public—including over the Internet—to also be licensed and inspected.

The PUPS Act would also require all dog breeders licensed under the federal Animal Welfare Act to exercise every dog every day, including allowing the dogs to reach a running stride without the use of treadmills or similar devices. Commercial breeders often keep their dogs in tiny cages for their entire lives. Requiring exercise could dramatically improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of dogs suffering from endless confinement at the hands of the commercial breeding industry.

What You Can Do

Please email your representative in the U.S. House today and ask him or her to support and cosponsor the PUPS Act!

To learn more about this issue, please visit www.aspca.org/puppymills.

Every evening, Tessa leaps onto the bed, where her owner rolls over, cups the Yorkshire Terrier’s  head in her hand, and gives a goodnight kiss. “She expects that every night,” says Marva Bulva, a retired waitress.

Come morning, Tessa races around the house, from the kitchen to the bedroom and back again. And she never misses dinnertime, waiting patiently for a handout. As Bulva says, “she’s spoiled rotten.”

Dogs in Missouri Puppy Mill

Certainly, she deserves it: Tessa spent her first six years confined to the hells of a Greene Country, MO puppy mill. When she was rescued in 2009 by the Humane Society of Missouri, her hair was so matted that her back legs were snarled together. Her toenails curled into her foot pads. She had fleas, ear mites, and gum disease so severe that all but one of her teeth were eventually pulled.

Such poor treatment is par for the course at the nation’s 10,000 puppy mills, 3,000 of which are in Missouri, pumping out puppies for Internet sales and pet stores. “They’re not taking care of these baby dogs,” Bulva says. “I don’t care whether it’s a German Shepherd or a Mexican Chichuaua; you just don’t do animals that way.”

But thanks to Bulva’s fellow Missourians, puppy mills in her state will soon be held to higher standards. Passed in November by almost 52 percent of voters, Proposition B ballot initiative limits operations to 50 breeding dogs and requires that breeders provide sufficient food, water, shelter, and veterinary care. Other requirements include rest between breeding cycles, solid flooring, unfettered access to an outside run, and space to turn around, lie down,  and stretch freely. The HSUS led the campaign for passage, supported by local shelters, the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, Tony LaRussa’s Animal Rescue Foundation, the ASPCA and Best Friends Animal Society.

While legislatures is 15 other states have passed tougher laws against puppy mills during the last three years, Prop B was the first citizen-led measure ever attempted on the issue. “The legislature has refused to do anything to stop puppy mill abuse before Prop B,” says Kathleen Summers, manager of the HSUS Puppy Mills Campaign. “And that’s why we had to take it to the people.”

Nearly a million voted for the measure — in a state known to advocates as the puppy mill capital of the country. With about 1 million puppies produced there annually and shipped to consumers across the US, “the win here has ripple effects nationwide,” says Barbara Schmitz, the HSUS Missouri state director and leader of the campaign.

The results will also be felt close to home by shelters that bear the burden of caring for neglected animals rescued from the state’s puppy mills. The Humane Society of Missouri alone takes in about 300 puppy mill dogs each year, seized from facilities targeted by local authorities like the one where Tessa was found. When the dogs first arrive, shelter staff immediately go to work easing their pain, washing away months of even years of accumulated filth, and helping them feel more comfortable in preparation for finding new homes.

When Prop B takes effect in November 2011, the need for these rescue missions will be curtailed. “For the state and for the animals, this was monumental,” says Debbie Hill, the shelter’s vice president of operations. “It was a huge leap forward, really sort of coming out of a damp, dark, smelly place — hopefully into light and fresh air, literally, for thousands of animals who have really been kept in horrible conditions for many, many years.” — Michael Sharp, All Animals

CLICK HERE FOR A LIST OF PUPPY MILL FAQ’S

I was just perusing around the HSUS site and found this great info on what people like us can do to help stop puppy mills, a particularly touchy issue for we Ohioans. Puppy mills are rife in Amish Country and southern Ohio, plus parts of Ohio that are farmland. Check it out:

Get an education

Whether you’re thinking about getting a dog, want to educate others about puppy mills or just want to learn more, check out FAQs about puppy mills and puppy buying tips.

Kids and teens: help stop puppy mills with A Cause for Paws.

Go online

Stop puppy mills by visiting our pages on Facebook and MySpace.

Help make your local pet store “puppy friendly”

The Puppy Friendly Pet Stores initiative asks dog lovers everywhere to work with their local pet stores to encourage them to develop and implement “puppy friendly” policies by refusing to sell puppies in their store and supporting homeless pet adoptions instead. Stores that already do not sell puppies can sign up to show that they are taking a stand against puppy mills and to “make official” their policy of not selling puppies. Learn more here »

Be an advocate

There are many things you can do to help dogs in puppy mills. “An Advocate’s Guide to Stopping Puppy Mills“ is a good place to start with many ideas that can propel you into action. ”A Guide to Using Local Ordinances to Combat Puppy Mills” is designed to help you work for the passage of local laws in your own community that will improve the lives of dogs in puppy mills.

Download “An Advocate’s Guide to Stopping Puppy Mills” »
Download “A Guide to Using Local Ordinances to Combat Puppy Mills” »

Or, you may order the more extensive kit that includes the guide as well as everything you’ll need to start spreading the word about puppy mills in your community, including printed materials, letter templates, tips for developing legislation and activity ideas. The kit is designed to help you discuss the puppy mill issue accurately and intelligently, whether speaking to friends and family or the local media: $3 each. Download the order form »

Lobby for better laws

Contact your federal and state legislators and let them know that you’re concerned about the inhumane treatment of dogs in puppy mills and want the puppy mill issue to be a priority for Congress. Ask them to expand the reach of the Animal Welfare Act to include kennels that sell large numbers of puppies directly to the public.

Get “Stop Puppy Mills” stuff

Spread the word about puppy mills wherever you go with stickers, T-shirts, bookmarks, dog collars, and flyers, or download a banner or badge for your website or blog »

Speak up

Writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper is a great way to get the word out about puppy mills in your community. Write your own version—a short, polite letter is most effective—or download a Microsoft Word version of the template that you can alter.

Furnish your vet with flyers

Download and print these flyers and bring them to your veterinarian or groomer’s office: “Getting a Puppy?” and “How to Find a Good Dog Breeder” are designed to help potential pet owners avoid puppy mills.

Donate

Help The HSUS in our ongoing campaign to stop puppy mills. Please make a donation today.c