SAD– ABA Takes the AR Position on Commercial Breeders

The REASON we say this?   Because “cracking down on puppy mills” is straight out of the HSUS playbook big time……….and WHERE in heaven’s name, is there proof that when a legal commercial kennel is selling animals and following the regs, that it is a “puppy”mill?

HSUS, ASPCA and their cronies have already been accused under RICO law, and willingly PAID out  $15.75 and $9.5million rather than face TRIAL on the charges.  Because they would have LOST. And that was after 14 years of litigation !!!

The ABA reporters may be ok, but when they don’t research enough and believe what the ARs tell them, it is more than obvious that writing up cursory, non accurate  stories which take the AR position (in our opinion) is not doing justice to anyone whatsoever.  All bracketed comments are done by PD.

New laws are cracking down on puppy mills and pet shops (ABA reporter’s words)

Posted Aug 1, 2014 5:00 AM CDT
By Lauren Etter

Animal welfare advocates are showing they have some bite in their bark as they score legal victories against one of their long-standing foes: puppy mills. [Note: these are NOT animal welfare “advocates” they are blatantly ANIMAL RIGHTS.  There is a marked difference which the author did not bother to explain.]

Around the country, state and local legislatures are passing laws aimed at shutting down the large, commercial pet-breeding operations that critics say impose inhumane living conditions on dogs and the puppies that fill pet store windows.

Some 45 cities, including Chicago and San Diego, have adopted varying bans aimed at preventing pet stores from buying their puppies from large commercial breeders. This tactic in effect cuts off demand for the puppy mill puppies. The Chicago ordinance requires that pet stores instead procure their puppy stock from shelters or humane, nonprofit organizations.  [This asinine tactic does not cut off demand for certain dogs or puppies…… simply channels people to go online. In addition, the laws are not constitutional in our view and in FACT, often allows the non profits to SELL the very same animals that a pet store is NOT allowed to BUY or SELL….to us, that is creation of a monopoly…]

Consumers often “don’t necessarily realize or understand that if they buy that dog they’re actually supporting a large commercial breeding facility where breeder dogs are being terribly treated,” says Rebecca Huss***, an animal law professor at Valparaiso University and former chair of the American Bar Association’s Animal Law Committee.  [Let’s face it– the ABA is stacked with tons of ARs, including one of the key authors of the animal rights case law book and he lives in CA and practices in SF]

***and here is something about “Rebecca Huss”: She has been the recipient of many awards including the U.S. Department of Justice, National Asset Forfeiture Award for Outstanding Investigation or Case (July 2009); 2008 President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency and Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency Award for Excellence; Award of Excellence from the United States Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General.  Most of this stuff clearly, in our opinion, involves HSUS type affiliation, but linked to the GOVERNMENT. Collusion. Who wants to bet she’s got her hand in there with APHIS?  We put odds on it.


While animal welfare advocates are gaining ground, there have been some victories for their opponents. In Phoenix, in response to a recently adopted anti-puppy mill ordinance, owners of a local pet store sued the city, arguing that the ordinance would put them out of business. In April, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction, in part reasoning that the pet store showed a likelihood of suffering “irreparable harm” to the business. [According to this author then, “animal welfare” is gaining ground, but “opponents” are sometimes obtaining victories. Thus this appears to mean an opponent must not and could not be a welfarist of animals? Ridiculous. One could be an animal welfarist and still believe the laws are unconstitutional. Do we really believe we could outlaw 75% of the products we buy because child labor may have been involved in production?]

The federal government has long had a hand in regulating the commercial sale of pets. Under the 1966 Animal Welfare Act, large breeders are required to obtain a license to ensure they maintain a certain standard of care for their animals. However, faced with severe budget constraints, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has often been unable to enforce the rules.  [Budget constraints has nothing to do with it. The government does not believe spending more $$ on such tasks is a high priority, yet they sic Sarah Conant on rabbit people and fine them $3 million?]

Also, for years under the act, large breeders that sold puppies over the Internet escaped regulation by the USDA. The online breeders were able to claim special status under the AWA that was designed to discharge brick-and-mortar pet shops from federal supervision since customers in theory could serve as a form of public oversight. [In actuality, such breeders were selling animals from themselves directly to consumers and thus if not to pet stores, would not actually have to be included. But since the ARs don’t believe ANY commercial kennel is worthy, the question itself is mooted! Thus a larger kennel selling over the Internet could either stop selling, or get a license. Chances are they would do neither, so their main flaw would be lack of a license.  ]

In recent years, however, a growing number of large-scale breeders were selling puppies online sight unseen yet still claiming the pet store exemption, to the alarm of regulators.  [ The reality is that most online sales of dogs take place and no one sees the dog before they buy it. The sale is still covered under the law in CA. Buying the dog in person is no guarantee of its worth,pedigree or heritage or health.]

Late last year, under pressure from animal advocates, the USDA changed the definition of “retail pet store” to encompass many of those online retailers.  [Animal rights like HSUS and those financially inclined to benefit from such as law, to prohibit breeding and sales, period, not to actually protect anyone.  In fact, the “retail” pet store change  was subsequently changed to include even the SMALL hobby breeders, hence the lawsuit. It already INCLUDED the larger kennels. Fact that larger kennels were  selling directly to consumers only means that there is such a demand for such animals that it will not be replaced by forced sales of “shelter, rescue or non profit sourced” dogs.]

In response, a group of breeders—ranging from the Goldendoodle Association of North America to the Chihuahua Club of America—sued the USDA,  saying that small, responsible breeders are unfairly being lumped in with more unsavory breeders. The lawsuit argues that the agency exceeded its authority under the Animal Welfare Act and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. [Again, this allegation that “responsible” breeders are lumped in with “unsavory” breeders is a misnomer GALORE. If we raise 7 intact females v 5 intact females, that does NOT mean we are necessarily a breeder which is not responsible.]

“These new requirements, which originally were proposed for one sector of the retail pet store industry—large breeders selling over the Internet—have in the final rule been extended to apply to members of plaintiffs, which are small-scale breeders, without any record support for doing so,” according to the lawsuit, which was filed in December and is still pending.

This article originally appeared in the August 2014 issue of the ABA Journal with this headline: “How Much Is That Puppy in the Window? New laws are cracking down on puppy mills and pet shops.”

Let’s say this: the author of this ABA article has done a disservice to all breeders, no matter the size. If we didn’t know better, we would believe that not only did she not understand what was going on, she used HSUS (who has paid out on RICO accusations) as the template.  Very sad, and even disturbing.

EB hsus dec OK