Record impoundment total
As of December 1, 2009, law enforcement agencies across the U.S. had impounded 9,162 dogs from 93 alleged puppy millers during the year, with a month to go. Puppy mill impoundments in a year topped 3,000 for the first time in 2007, and soared to 8,000 in 2008. Involved in about 1,600 impoundments since it was formed in June 2009, the Wilde Puppy Mill Task Force on December 3 introduced a national telephone tip line, 1-877-MILL-TIP, to collect information about possible puppy mills that might not be known yet to law enforcement.
A project of the Humane Society of the U.S., the Wilde Puppy Mill Task Force was funded by the estate of Kenneth and Lillian Wilde. The increased seizures reflect a combination of stronger laws
and better-coordinated enforcement efforts, including more active involvement of large national organizations in helping local agencies to cope with seizures that often bring in more dogs than the total capacity of community pounds and shelters.
Typical divisions of labor include HSUS assisting with investigative work, the American SPCA providing veterinarians and forensic help, and the Best Friends Animal Society and North Shore Animal League Amer-ica rehabilitating and rehoming the impounded dogs, when legally cleared to do so.
Wisconsin governor Jim Doyle on December 1, 2009 signed into law a bill that will introduce to Wisconsin a requirement that dog breeders who sell more than 25 dogs must be licensed by the state,
and must meet care standards similar to those now in effect in Pennsylvania.
Thwarted thus far in efforts to push stricter legislation through the Ohio General Assembly, including an end to dog auctions such as the one that prompted Bill Smith to jet to Baltic, the Coalition to Ban Ohio Dog Auctions on October 13, 2009 won certification from the Ohio Ballot Board "to begin collecting 120,683 petition signatures toward a goal of putting the issue before voters next year," wrote Mark Niquette of the Columbus Dispatch. "If the General Assembly fails to act within four months" of receiving the initial 120,683 signatures, explained Niqu-ette, "the coalition then may collect an additional 120,683 signatures to get the issue on the November 2010 ballot."
The Colorado legislature in February 2009 "rejected legislation that would regulate the dog breeding industry," recalled Associated Press writer Steven K. Paulson, but a task force convened by Kate Anderson, administrator of the state's Pet Animal Care Facilities Program, "will address the regulation of issues like cage sizes without seeking new laws," Paulsen continued. "Anderson said the state can use its rule-making authority instead." Any new rules would require approval from the Colorado
Commission of Agriculture.
Animal advocates in some regions are having to fight, both politically and in court, to keep gains already made. In Lincoln, Nebraska on November 10, 2009, "After hearing howls of protest from the Nebraska Humane Society and others, the Agriculture Committee of the Nebraska Legislature voted 7-0 to kill a proposal that would have weakened a 2007 law requiring inspections of dog kennels and other pet-breeding outlets every two years," reported Paul Hammel of the Omaha World-Herald News Service.
Introduced by state senator Tom Carlson as a budget-cutting measure, the proposal would have required that inspections be done only in response to complaints, as was done before 2007.
Since relatively few people have the opportunity to see enough of commercial dog breeding facilities to be able to complain about the conditions, inspection procedures driven only by complaints tend to become prescriptions for non-enforcement of standards.
In Kentucky, the Louisville Kennel Club and co-plaintiffs in October 2009 lost a bid to have declared unconstitutional a comprehensive dog law adopted in 2007 by the city of Louisville and
Jefferson County.
U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Simpson, III struck down provisions of the law requiring owners of unaltered dogs to obtain written approval of their enclosures and mandating "permanent forfeiture of a seized animal if the judge finds probable cause [of inhumane treatment or other violation of the law justifying confiscation of the animal] and the owner fails to timely post the appropriate bond." The legal defect in the latter provision is that a person could be acquitted of charges and still lose his or her animals.
Assessed Laura Allen of the Animal Law Coaltion, "Important sections of the animal control law challenged by the Kennel Club and upheld by the court include the prohibition of cruelty to animals;
provisions preventing animal nuisances; restrictions on tethering animals in a cruel or neglectful manner; provisions concerning impoundment and license revocation; restrictions on sales of
dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs; provisions granting animal control the authority to seize animals of owners violating the ordinance; requirements for veterinarians to report public health
information, such as vaccination records and animal bites, to the government; and definitions of 'dangerous dog,' 'potentially dangerous dog,' 'proper enclosures' for unaltered dogs, 'nuisance,'
'attack,' 'restraint,' and 'cruelty.'"
A potentially problematic loss, however, came on September 15, 2009 when U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge of Couer d'Alene, Idaho, ruled that dogs raised by a commercial breeder may be legally
considered livestock, and may therefore be kept at kennels located within a federally-designated Wild & Scenic River corridor. The case originated more than 10 years earlier, according to David Johnson of the Lewiston Morning Tribune, when the U.S. Forest Service ordered Ron and Mary Park, of Kooskia, to relocate their Wild River Kennels away from the Clearwater River.
Lodge in 2005 ruled that dogs could not be considered livestock, but, wrote Johnson, "The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Lodge, and remanded the matter back to his court."
"We are following the case," Humane Society Legislative Fund president Mike Markarian told ANIMAL PEOPLE, "since it has to do with the definition of livestock under federal law. In general, defining breeding dogs as livestock will further reduce the already meager humane protections for dogs confined in large-scale puppy mills.
As of December 1, 2009, law enforcement agencies across the U.S. had impounded 9,162 dogs from 93 alleged puppy millers during the year, with a month to go. Puppy mill impoundments in a year topped 3,000 for the first time in 2007, and soared to 8,000 in 2008. Involved in about 1,600 impoundments since it was formed in June 2009, the Wilde Puppy Mill Task Force on December 3 introduced a national telephone tip line, 1-877-MILL-TIP, to collect information about possible puppy mills that might not be known yet to law enforcement.
A project of the Humane Society of the U.S., the Wilde Puppy Mill Task Force was funded by the estate of Kenneth and Lillian Wilde. The increased seizures reflect a combination of stronger laws
and better-coordinated enforcement efforts, including more active involvement of large national organizations in helping local agencies to cope with seizures that often bring in more dogs than the total capacity of community pounds and shelters.
Typical divisions of labor include HSUS assisting with investigative work, the American SPCA providing veterinarians and forensic help, and the Best Friends Animal Society and North Shore Animal League Amer-ica rehabilitating and rehoming the impounded dogs, when legally cleared to do so.
and must meet care standards similar to those now in effect in Pennsylvania.
Thwarted thus far in efforts to push stricter legislation through the Ohio General Assembly, including an end to dog auctions such as the one that prompted Bill Smith to jet to Baltic, the Coalition to Ban Ohio Dog Auctions on October 13, 2009 won certification from the Ohio Ballot Board "to begin collecting 120,683 petition signatures toward a goal of putting the issue before voters next year," wrote Mark Niquette of the Columbus Dispatch. "If the General Assembly fails to act within four months" of receiving the initial 120,683 signatures, explained Niqu-ette, "the coalition then may collect an additional 120,683 signatures to get the issue on the November 2010 ballot."
The Colorado legislature in February 2009 "rejected legislation that would regulate the dog breeding industry," recalled Associated Press writer Steven K. Paulson, but a task force convened by Kate Anderson, administrator of the state's Pet Animal Care Facilities Program, "will address the regulation of issues like cage sizes without seeking new laws," Paulsen continued. "Anderson said the state can use its rule-making authority instead." Any new rules would require approval from the Colorado
Commission of Agriculture.
Animal advocates in some regions are having to fight, both politically and in court, to keep gains already made. In Lincoln, Nebraska on November 10, 2009, "After hearing howls of protest from the Nebraska Humane Society and others, the Agriculture Committee of the Nebraska Legislature voted 7-0 to kill a proposal that would have weakened a 2007 law requiring inspections of dog kennels and other pet-breeding outlets every two years," reported Paul Hammel of the Omaha World-Herald News Service.
Introduced by state senator Tom Carlson as a budget-cutting measure, the proposal would have required that inspections be done only in response to complaints, as was done before 2007.
Since relatively few people have the opportunity to see enough of commercial dog breeding facilities to be able to complain about the conditions, inspection procedures driven only by complaints tend to become prescriptions for non-enforcement of standards.
In Kentucky, the Louisville Kennel Club and co-plaintiffs in October 2009 lost a bid to have declared unconstitutional a comprehensive dog law adopted in 2007 by the city of Louisville and
Jefferson County.
U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Simpson, III struck down provisions of the law requiring owners of unaltered dogs to obtain written approval of their enclosures and mandating "permanent forfeiture of a seized animal if the judge finds probable cause [of inhumane treatment or other violation of the law justifying confiscation of the animal] and the owner fails to timely post the appropriate bond." The legal defect in the latter provision is that a person could be acquitted of charges and still lose his or her animals.
Assessed Laura Allen of the Animal Law Coaltion, "Important sections of the animal control law challenged by the Kennel Club and upheld by the court include the prohibition of cruelty to animals;
provisions preventing animal nuisances; restrictions on tethering animals in a cruel or neglectful manner; provisions concerning impoundment and license revocation; restrictions on sales of
dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs; provisions granting animal control the authority to seize animals of owners violating the ordinance; requirements for veterinarians to report public health
information, such as vaccination records and animal bites, to the government; and definitions of 'dangerous dog,' 'potentially dangerous dog,' 'proper enclosures' for unaltered dogs, 'nuisance,'
'attack,' 'restraint,' and 'cruelty.'"
A potentially problematic loss, however, came on September 15, 2009 when U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge of Couer d'Alene, Idaho, ruled that dogs raised by a commercial breeder may be legally
considered livestock, and may therefore be kept at kennels located within a federally-designated Wild & Scenic River corridor. The case originated more than 10 years earlier, according to David Johnson of the Lewiston Morning Tribune, when the U.S. Forest Service ordered Ron and Mary Park, of Kooskia, to relocate their Wild River Kennels away from the Clearwater River.
Lodge in 2005 ruled that dogs could not be considered livestock, but, wrote Johnson, "The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Lodge, and remanded the matter back to his court."
"We are following the case," Humane Society Legislative Fund president Mike Markarian told ANIMAL PEOPLE, "since it has to do with the definition of livestock under federal law. In general, defining breeding dogs as livestock will further reduce the already meager humane protections for dogs confined in large-scale puppy mills.
Permission granted to cross post this articleFrom Merritt Clifton of ANIMAL PEOPLE, November/December 2009:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
