Monday, July 22, 2013

Mischief Monday: Missouri Puppy Mill Lawsuit Withdrawn

Once again, I'm not talking about mischief at my house.  Today I'm barking about commercial dog breeders in Missouri.  

Several months ago, a group representing 83 dog breeders in Missouri brought a lawsuit to stop the new regulations for humane standards of care for dogs in puppy mills.  (The Canine Cruelty Prevention Act was passed in 2011.)  

These breeders now have dismissed their lawsuit against the regulations and the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act will remain the law of the land in Missouri.

Dog breeders must now comply with the new law or close their dog breeding businesses.  As of today, more than 1,000 dog breeders have chose to close up shop.  All breeding dogs now must be provided with veterinary care including an annual veterinary examination, have unfettered access to outdoor exercise, increased living space, and can no longer be housed on wire flooring.

Obviously, that's good news.  The mischief has to do with the testimony given in the latest court hearings.

Here's what the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation has to say about the lawsuit being withdrawn:
"We are certain that the lawsuit was dropped not only because there was no legal basis for such a court case but a public trial would have proved extremely embarrassing for the commercial dog breeding industry.
In the hearing for a preliminary injunction, one breeder testified that when she was told she had to provide her dogs with access to the outdoors, she chose to kill them rather than comply with the new rule. She had her veterinarian euthanize 72 of them and proudly presented a photo of 25 dead dogs to the judge as evidence of how her business has suffered since passage of the new law. Another breeder in the courtroom audience stated that she also destroyed her dogs rather than comply with new rules and bragged that she only had to pay her vet $7 per dog to have them euthanized.   

While some of the testimony was a tragic exposure of how dogs are exploited in the commercial dog breeding industry, some of the testimony proved farcical as the breeders and their representatives argued that they did not know what "constant" and "unfettered" access to the outdoors meant. They claimed that since the regulations did not define the terms, the breeders were left in the dark. One witness under cross examination by the attorney general's office was asked to read the definition of "constant" and "unfettered" from the dictionary. After reading the definition, the witness claimed that nowhere in the regulations did it say to refer to the dictionary for meaning of the words. He claimed not to know to use a dictionary for words he did not understand. He argued that "even words with defined meaning need further clarification from the Department of Agriculture."  

Another breeder testified that her dogs cannot be outside as they are too excitable and the excitement of being outside could kill them. She said she could not risk them being outside as a car might backfire or children might walk by her yard. Any excitement could cause them to die. This, of course, raises the question as to whether she informs her customers that the puppies she is selling are restricted to indoor use only for their entire life and can never go outside even to relieve themselves. This breeder testified that "outside air causes loss of ventilation" for dogs. She alleged that six dogs died of heatstroke and excitability when she tried an outdoor exercise plan.
 
The breeders argued that dogs do not need access to sunlight and even expressed objection to providing extra bedding to dogs housed outside in winter weather claiming they did not know what "extra bedding" meant. The breeders also argued against the requirement for heavy duty tarps for windbreaks for dogs housed outside.

An Assistant Attorney General summed it up well for the judge when he asserted that dogs are simply commodities to commercial dog breeders. We are certain that the dog breeders did not want the public to be aware of that sad fact and dropped their lawsuit rather than publicly expose the cruel conditions of puppy mills and the uncaring attitude of too many commercial breeders at an open trial."
Though I've been critical of the new Missouri law, saying that it does not go far enough, I'm glad we've got it when I think about the kind of people it addresses.

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION:  The Canine Cruelty Prevention Act addresses individuals and entities that enter dogs or cats into commerce as defined under Missouri state statute.  Commercial breeders are inspected at least once per years by Missouri state animal care inspectors.   

In plain language, for those dogs confined to crates/small wire enclosures in commercial dog breeding facilities, attached outdoor runs are required.  Those runs must have "constant and unfettered access", as well as meet requirements for drainage and shade.  And there are other requirements for commercial dog breeding facilities.

My post (above) summarized testimony given by those commercial dog breeders who testified in a public court hearing.   

Thank you to Snoopy’s Dog Blog, Alfie’s Blog, and My Brown Newfies for hosting Monday Mischief! 

25 comments:

  1. The keeping the dogs inside thing is perhaps the most ridiculous excuse I have ever heard. Before I knew better I got Ping from Missouri and Im quite certain she was from a puppy mill, as a young pup she was shy but bounced back quickly. However, she came with mange and a bad case of worms. Her "breeder" never contacted me after her arrival, very different from my experiences with responsible owners. I often wonder about Ping's relatives

    urban hounds

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing! I sincerely hope that Pink develops no health problems that are the result of puppy mill inbreeding. Many of the mills here in Missouri are either being closed or are choosing to close due to our new law. I'm just glad that some of the misery in Missouri is coming to an end.

      Delete
  2. No kidding. At least you have a law. We're still waiting for legislators in Mn to stand up and do the right thing here.
    My contact with the puppy mill bill here had shared some of the testimony with me last night. It's amazing they thought they would win given what came out. They sound like idiots on the stand. We were laughing at their stupidity, but now that I read the details I am a little more sober. How sad for those dogs who were killed because they would cost the breeder money. At least they are no longer suffering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know, Mel. I've been watching MN... Our law is far from ideal, but it is making an impact. The area where I live is big-time PRO puppy mills and you wouldn't believe some of the conversations I've had.

      Delete
  3. Does it really say "constant" and "unfettered" access to the outdoors? So if constant unfettered access to the outdoors is so good, then why isn't every dog owner required to provide it? There are big issues with doing that. I could list them. I think that part of any law is too much. I am no fan of commercial breeders, but they were right in questioning that provision in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Linda, the law states: "Except as prescribed by rule, licensees shall provide constant and unfettered access to an attached outdoor run for any enclosure newly constructed after April 15, 2011, and for all enclosures as of January 16, 2016."

      We're talking about commercial dog breeders who raise dogs/puppies IN CONFINEMENT.

      I respectfully disagree with you and believe no animal should spend their entire lives 24/7 confined to a crate. I believe it is inhumane and cruel.

      Delete
    2. I don't think 2 Brown Dawgs is endorsing constant confinement. Reading through, all I thought was, "My own dogs don't get constant, unfettered access to the outdoors." We don't have a dog door. The dogs go out when I let them, which is not constant. If I lived in an apartment, their outside experience wouldn't be unfettered. No, no dog should spend its life in a cage or crate. But the language leaves much to be desired for thinking dog owners and for responsible breeders.

      Delete
    3. Exactly Flea. I think the language is much too broad.

      I worry that someday that will be required of all dog owners. If it is a good idea. It is a good idea. Right?


      Delete
    4. For any dogs confined to a small crate 24/7, I would support a law that required constant, unfettered access to the outdoors via an attached outdoor run. (As this law does for commercial dog breeders.)

      Delete
    5. Well that makes total sense. It's the confining to a small crate 24/7 part that's bothersome. The language part is, I guess, what is disturbing. What starts as something good, with good intentions, can be used against the general populace if it's not carefully written. That's all.

      Delete
    6. Flea, the unfettered access to the outdoor run is DIRECTLY TIED TO THE CRATE/CAGE CONFINEMENT and very clearly worded in the Missouri law.

      Personally, I would definitely support the same being required of the general populace who keep dogs confined 24/7 in a crate/cage.

      Delete
  4. Wow, that's so hard to read and comprehend how people could be so premeditated in their ignorance. What some people will do for a buck. While I hate that those dogs were euthanized, better than to continue their suffering. I hope more states get behind these types of laws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup... all about $$$. And making that $$$ off the suffering of living creatures.

      Delete
  5. It's hard to realize that there are people who think sentient dogs are cash crops like corn and alfalfa. Some friends recently adopted a puppy mill breeding dog. They are wonderful people but have quite a challenge ahead of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do, indeed. In fact, it is the Dept of Agriculture that oversees commercial dog breeding here in MO. I wish your friends the very best with your dog. My mom had a dog that came from a puppy mill as a puppy. No socialization problems, but the health problems were enormous and cut his life short by several years.

      Delete
  6. That makes me sick. Especially the woman complaining how her business "suffered". What about how the dogs suffered?? Disgusting people.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just don't understand puppy mills, how can people do that! We went with Mom on some showings about an hour from our place yesterday and along the one highway there were several homes with puppies for sale signs...made my mom and us really mad. It was a more rural area and we just don't think that if they were reputable they would have spray painted plywood signs along the highway!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm glad that 1,000 breeders have closed their doors but so sad for the dogs that were euthanized. Euthanizing your dog shows your ignorance and proves they are only in it for the money and the dogs mean nothing beyond that. I wonder what they'll choose to exploit next? Their attitude is a sad reflection on society and the animal welfare system in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  9. OMG! I'm glad the law passed and those people do need to shut there doors, they don't care for the animals at all. It's always someone else's faught. Thanks for posting this up, get the word out there!

    ReplyDelete
  10. We're still constantly shocked by how some people behave - I'm glad the new law is finally undisputed and hope one day all animals will be properly protected...

    Wags to all

    Your pal Snoopy :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's the animals that are at the mercy of their human handlers, and these shops are downright inconsiderate of animal life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Deakin Vet. Totally agree with you and I'd go further and say it is inconsiderate of LIFE period.

      Delete
  12. My God!! It's scary reading that part when they say they have killed them all rather them doing the rule/law :( it's so sad.

    Well at least you have law. Here in some part of my country, they breed dogs so that they can eat them. (I am planning to write about this as soon as I have a lot of free time)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Disgusting. I wonder how many are still operating in secret.

    ReplyDelete
  14. OMG - This is just shocking and give dog breeding such a horrible name. I can't believe that they were proud to euthanize dogs and that a veterinarian would do such a thing. And they think THEY are the ones who are suffering. It's such a sad state of affairs.

    Thank you for sharing this; it's really eye opening when it comes to the minds of people who run puppy mills.

    ReplyDelete

Go ahead... bark at us!