Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Operation Bark Alert

In 1992, Missouri led the nation by becoming one of only a handful of states with a dog regulatory program. A continued effort, in 2009, Missouri once again took the lead in cracking down on unlicensed breeders with the launch of Operation Bark Alert.

Report an unlicensed breeder in Missouri at Operation Bark Alert

Help the Missouri Department of Agriculture crackdown on unlicensed breeders. If you know of an unlicensed breeder in Missouri putting the health and welfare of animals at risk, report them here. Use the online reporting system to easily help us locate unlicensed, substandard breeders in Missouri. With every tip from the public, animal care inspectors visit the location in question to validate the report of animal welfare.

More Rescues, More Prosecutions – Enforcement Works!

Updated Jan. 3, 2012
Since the launch of Operation Bark Alert, more than 5,500 dogs have been rescued in Missouri. In 2009, Missouri saw a decrease of 164 commercial breeders thanks to Operation Bark Alert. In 2010, the trend continued with a decrease of more than 200 additional commercial breeders, and by the end of 2011, Missouri had 680 fewer commercial breeders than in January 2009.
In 2011, Animal Care inspectors completed more than 2,850 inspections – an all-time high - up from just over 2,600 inspections in 2010.
Animal Health Division
Phone: (573) 751-3377
Email: Animal.Health@mda.mo.gov

Please Remember Your Animals In This Heat...

Signs of Heat Stroke -...
HEAT WARNING TODAY...Remember to bring your animals in. Signs of Heat Stroke - Get to a vet immediately! The following signs may indicate heat stroke in a dog: Increased rectal temperature (over 104° requires action, over 106° is a dire emergency) Vigorous panting Dark red gums Tacky or dry mucus membranes (specifically the gums) Lying down and unwilling (or unable) to get up Collapse and/or loss of consciousness Thick saliva Dizziness or disorientation

Friday, July 27, 2012

I have a very personal – and urgent – request: Our family member, Pets for Patriots volunteer and WWII veteran is terminally ill and just went into hospice. We don’t know how much time he has left with us, but he’s gravely ill and it could be any time.
Charles starred in our first ever video and has only wanted for as many people as possible to view it so that they can learn about our mission and work. To date we have a little under 8.000 views, but really want to swing for the fences and get 100k+ over the next day or so. In spite of his condition, Charles’ face lights up whenever I tell him the “count” for the day; we’ve been trying to promote the video on social media over the last week or so as his condition has deteriorated rapidly.
Time is of the essence. It would be a wonderful tribute to this former B17 belly gunner – who risked his life in 33 missions over Germany – to know that he has touched so many people and, in so doing, helped our charity that he loves with all his heart.
It would mean a great deal to Charles, to me and to our organization if you would feature his video prominently and help us spread the word. Thank you for considering my request.
Beth Zimmerman, Founder + Executive Director

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Frequently Asked Questions about Puppy Mills
  • 4-5 million animals die in shelters every year (roughly 11,000 every day)
  • 20% of animals in shelters are purebred
  • It's estimated that 500,000 dogs are bred in puppy mills every year
  • There are more than 6,000 licensed commercial kennels in the U.S. (and untold numbers of
    What is a puppy mill?
    There are many different definitions for the term "puppy mill," but Best Friends' definition is any person who breeds dogs for commercial sale—that is, in order to make a profit. A puppy miller is a person who breeds to make money. It is that person's main reason for having dogs. Puppy mills can be poorly maintained, filthy places, or they can be fairly clean and well-organized, but the common thread is both types breed dogs for sale.

    How can you tell the difference between a puppy mill and a good breeder?
    In order to make money, a puppy mill operates differently than a responsible breeder. The list below describes characteristics that indicate that a breeder is operating as a commercial enterprise instead of breeding as a hobby:

    Common signs of a puppy mill:
  • Puppy mills usually have several breeds of dogs for sale at the same time
  • Puppy mills often offer to ship dogs to new owners
  • Puppy millers usually will not allow customers to view their property or kennel
  • Puppy millers do not require an application or references from people buying a puppy
  • Puppy millers do not ask buyers to return or contact them if at any point in the dog's life if the
    owners cannot keep the dog
  • Puppy mills keep a lot of dogs and a lot of puppies to make a profit
  • Puppy mills breed females every time they come into heat, so they are pregnant or nursing at all
  • Puppy mills are often USDA-licensed so they can sell puppies to pet stores. A USDA license is a red
    flag that breeders are in the business to make money
  • Puppy mills supply pet stores with puppies
    What's wrong with a breeder having a lot of dogs or making money from breeding, as long as they take care of the dogs?
    Even if a commercial breeder keeps dogs clean and relatively healthy, they still breed females every time they come into heat. The dogs still live in cages 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and have little or no human contact or love. Their purpose in life is to sit in a cage, constantly producing new puppies to make a profit for the owner.

    Life for a dog in even the "best" puppy mill is one that no creature should have to endure, especially companion animals that for generations have been considered man's best friend. Even in the "best" puppy mill, dogs will live in a cage until they are sold to another breeder, or until their bodies literally give out and they can no longer produce any more puppies.
    How can people be sure they're not getting a dog from a puppy mill?
    The best way is to adopt a dog or puppy from a shelter or rescue group instead of buying one. Never buy from a pet store or online. In fact with millions of animals, including purebred dogs and puppies, dying in shelters every year, there is no reason to breed or buy them at all. There are thousands of wonderful pets available for adoption on websites, and it is easy to search for particular breeds or ages of pets. There are websites just for shelters and rescue groups to showcase their available animals. A few good sites are:

One can also find a dog by contacting a local breed rescue organization by searching www.google.com. Enter a city or state, the breed you are looking for, and the word "rescue." Every pet adopted is a life saved!
What about purchasing a dog or puppy online or in a pet store?
Never buy a dog or puppy from a pet store or through the Internet. Never buy a dog unless you see where it was raised, and meet its parents. Pet stores get their puppies from puppy mills because of cost and convenience. They buy dogs wholesale from breeders who raise and sell them commercially. It's all business. Don't be fooled by registration papers, claims that dogs are from "local breeders," guarantees or free vet visits. No matter what the store says, it is always safer to adopt a dog or through a reputable hobby breeder where you can see where the dogs are raised.

Purchasing a dog online is even more dangerous than buying one from a pet store. In most states, breeders need no license to sell dogs directly to the public. They are never checked out by inspectors and they often are only selling through the internet in order to avoid inspection.
If a dog is registered or "has papers," does that mean it is high-quality or healthy?
Registration papers or a pedigree is worth no more than a blank piece of paper. Anyone can register a dog by filling out a form and paying a fee. Registration means that the dog's name and existence has been duly recorded with the registry, but papers are no guarantee the dog is purebred or healthy.

Is it true that there are health or behavior problems with puppy mill dogs?
Yes, and they are significant. Puppies raised in cages away from human contact miss out on important socialization that will affect their behavior for the rest of their lives. Because they are taken away from their mothers as early as possible for sale, they miss out on what mother dogs teach puppies—how to interact properly with other dogs and with people.

Common health problems found in dogs from puppy mills and sold in pet stores:
  • Internal parasites, some that can infect humans as well
  • Deadly diseases such as parvo and distemper
  • Congenital defects such as luxating patellas (displaced kneecaps), hip, eye and heart defects.
    These often do not become apparent until years after dogs are purchased and the pet store's warranty is long expired.
    Are puppy mills legal?
    Yes. The federal government (USDA) regulates breeders who sell animals to pet stores, and there are no laws against the keeping and breeding a lot of dogs. What is illegal is animal cruelty, and that is what causes puppy mills to be shut down. Best Friends believes that even the cleanest puppy mill is cruel, because the females are kept perpetually pregnant and dogs are forced to live in cages their whole lives. 

Monday, July 23, 2012

Missouri Dog Breeder SHut Down

Missouri Dog Breeder Shut Down

(KMOX/Brett Blume)
(KMOX/Brett Blume)
ELLSINORE, Mo. (AP) – The Missouri Attorney General’s office has shut down a southern Missouri dog breeder, citing several violations of the state’s Animal Care Facilities Act.
Attorney General Chris Koster says C&N Sunset Kennels owner Connie Nelson must transfer all of the breeding dogs to a licensed breeder, rescue shelters or to the public. She was also fined $5,000, though all but $500 of that is suspended as long as she doesn’t violate terms of the consent judgment for six years.
Koster says inspections found that the kennel in Ellsinore operated without a license, failed to provide veterinary care for the dogs, even failed to provide them with potable water.
© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Attorney General Chris Koster said his office has shut down a Carter County dog breeder for violations of the Animal Care Facilities Act.
Koster said Connie Nelson owned C&N’s Sunset Kennels, a commercial breeder facility located in Ellsinore. Under the terms of a consent judgment issued by the Carter County Circuit Court, Nelson is required to transfer all of the breeding dogs at her facility to compliant, ACFA-licensed facilities, rescue shelters, or to the public.
“We want Missouri to be known as a state that raises animals in a humane environment and offers dogs from well-operated kennels to buyers across the country,” Koster said.
The consent judgment also prohibits Nelson from applying to the Department of Agriculture for a permit for the operation of an animal shelter, pound, boarding kennel, commercial kennel, contract kennel, pet shop, exhibition facility, commercial breeder or hobby show breeder for six years. In addition, Nelson is required to pay court costs and a civil penalty of $5,000, with $4,500 being suspended on the condition that she doesn’t violate the terms of the consent judgment for six years.
Inspections by the Missouri Department of Agriculture uncovered numerous violations of the law, including that Nelson:
  • operated without an ACFA license;
  • failed to provide veterinary care;
  • failed to provide her dogs with potable water;
  • failed to provide solid resting surfaces to dogs in cages with elevated flooring;
  • failed to maintain a complete record of the disposition of her dogs; and
  • failed to identify her dogs or keep records of their identification

Koster, in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Agriculture, has made cracking down on illegal dog breeders and sellers a priority in his office. Operating a regulated facility in Missouri without a license will no longer be tolerated.
“We take animal care seriously in Missouri and we welcome only those pet breeders who do it responsibly,” said Director of Agriculture Dr. Jon Hagler. “I am proud of the Animal Care team’s efforts and the continued cooperation of the Attorney General in addressing substandard breeders.”

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Alliance header 2012
dogs in cages
Will as Bear when rescued



Due to the large number of comments being submitted to the USDA over the weekend, the server crashed. In response, the USDA has extended their deadline to receive comments to August 15.
View more information on this extension here.
We need you to help us spread the word!
USDA needs to hear from you by August 15th in reference to their new proposed rules that would require breeders who sell puppies over the Internet to be federally licensed and regulated by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. This is critical since Missouri is home to more commercial dog breeders than any other state. Many so called e-mills are circumventing federal regulations and federal oversight by selling over the Internet. Currently, a federal license is required only if one sells to pet stores.
The AKC is generating many comments from dog breeders. We need to offset these comments. The USDA needs to hear from as many animal advocates as possible.
We urgently need you to send your comments to the USDA in SUPPORT of these new rule changes.
Please tell USDA that you agree with their proposed rules and that it is important that they inspect all large-scale commercial breeders of dogs and cats whether they sell to pet stores or to consumers via the Internet.
Submit your comments electronically by going to the federal rule making portal:
All comments must be received by
August 15, 2012
You can make one or more of the following points in your comments:
  • The proposed rules are necessary to ensure that all breeding animals are monitored for their health and humane treatment regardless if their puppies are sold in pet stores or over the Internet.
  • The proposed rules will protect consumers who purchase a puppy sight unseen over the Internet and will help ensure that they receive a healthy puppy.
  • These rules will help encourage dog breeders to open their doors to the public so buyers can see the conditions in which their new puppy is raised or be subject to inspections by USDA.
  • These rules will help concentrate the regulatory efforts of USDA on those facilities that present the greatest risk to the welfare of the animals.
  • These rules will hold breeders accountable to normal sensible regulations that good reputable breeders are already doing and will not place an undue burden on any responsible breeder.
  • Please thank USDA for proposing these rules and encourage them to implement them as written.
This is your opportunity to truly make a difference for the animals.
The puppy millers are already sending letters of protest to USDA. We need you to refute any such attempts to weaken USDA's proposed new rules.
Thank you for contacting USDA on this critical matter. The dogs and cats who suffer in inhumane breeding facilities are deeply appreciative.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Love This Song......

This Is What Denver Colorado Does To Pitbulls

This is a pic of what Denver, Colorado  does. They hunt them down, round them up and needlessly kill them as part of their breed ban. These were dogs who had loving homes...that got picked up and murdered for what they looked like and not for anything they did. This is how a breed ban manifests itself by rounding up and murdering perfectly healthy, happy and innocent family members. Heart wrenching!

25% of DOGS/PUPPIES At Shelters are PUREBRED

Pits Are So Misunderstood & Mislabeled

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Woman Ticketed for Leaving Dog in Car in St. Charles
Temperature inside car was 114 °F.
St. Charles Police issued a citation to a woman who left a dog in a car while she shopped at Walmart off of Veterans Memorial Parkway last week.
Temperatures reached a high of 103 °F on the afternoon of July 5. Someone called police to report a brown and white pointer or mixed breed dog inside of a car. Police arrived by 3:30 p.m.
Three windows were partway down, but the dog was panting heavily, said Lt. Dave Senter of the St. Charles Police Department. The temperature inside the car was 114 °F.
The owner of the car returned to her car to meet the officer at 3:55 p.m., Senter said. Police issued the woman a citation for abandoning the animal in a vehicle.
Animal neglect and abandonment are ordinance violations. A first offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to 15 days and/or a fine of up to $500.
Senter said the dog was not seized.
Incidents like this happen a few times each summer, Senter said, but it's not a widespread problem.

Friday, July 13, 2012

Remember To Take Car Of The Animals In This Heat

Animal cruelty is cruelty

   Mar. 28, 2012 12:00 AM
The Republic | azcentral.com

A dog is a dog. Cruelty is cruelty. A bill before the state Senate ignores this logic.

HB 2780 exempts dogs used in ranching and farming from the state law against all sorts of animal cruelty, and it prohibits cities or counties from using their own anti-cruelty laws to protect these animals.
As a rancher, "I could torture my dog every day and not be held accountable," Kathleen Mayer of the Pima County Attorney's Office told a House committee.
In addition to her office, two Pima County supervisors and the Humane Society of Southern Arizona, the bill is opposed by the Humane Society of the United States and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Yet it passed the House with only minor changes.
Republican Rep. Penny Judd ran the bill in response to a case in which Pima County cited a rancher for a violation of a county ordinance that outlaws tethering dogs.
Yes, ranchers on the range might have occasion to tie up their dogs for safety's sake. But, in this case, the county responded to a complaint and found two dogs shut up in a horse trailer without food or water, and three others were tied outside with only green, slimy water available. The dogs were left tied up for two days, according to Democratic Rep. Steve Farley.
"This bill makes people think farmers and ranchers are routinely abusing their dogs, and they are not, " Farley said. "So, why do you need an exemption?"
Good question.
What's worse, the bill could create a shield for those engaged in such nefarious activities as breeding dogs for fighting, Mayer said.
An amendment may be offered in the Senate to narrow the exemption and clarify that this bill applies only to dogs involved in ranching or herding. It still strips cities and counties of the authority to enforce local animal-cruelty ordinances in these cases.
Mayer worked with Arpaio's office and the Arizona Cattle Growers Association on the proposed amendment. She says her office would be neutral on the bill if the amendment passed. Arpaio is likely to drop his opposition if the bill is changed, according to his spokeswoman Lisa Allen.
But even if amended, this legislation represents an unwise overreaction to what appears to be a perfectly legitimate use of a local ordinance to combat animal abuse.
It erodes efforts to protect animals, and it should be rejected.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2012/03/27/20120327editorial0328-animal-cruelty-cruelty.html#ixzz20XS1W4FC
State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Fiftieth Legislature
Second Regular Session
HB 2780
Introduced by
Representatives Judd, Gowan, Stevens: Heinz, Senator Griffin
amending section 13-2910, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to animal cruelty.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Section 13-2910, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
START_STATUTE13‑2910. Cruelty to animals; interference with working or service animal; classification; definitions
A. A person commits cruelty to animals if the person does any of the following:
1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly subjects any animal under the person's custody or control to cruel neglect or abandonment.
2. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly fails to provide medical attention necessary to prevent protracted suffering to any animal under the person's custody or control.
3. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly inflicts unnecessary physical injury to any animal.
4. Recklessly subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment.
5. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly kills any animal under the custody or control of another person without either legal privilege or consent of the owner.
6. Recklessly interferes with, kills or harms a working or service animal without either legal privilege or consent of the owner.
7. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly leaves an animal unattended and confined in a motor vehicle and physical injury to or death of the animal is likely to result.
8. Intentionally or knowingly subjects any animal under the person's custody or control to cruel neglect or abandonment that results in serious physical injury to the animal.
9. Intentionally or knowingly subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment.
10. Intentionally or knowingly interferes with, kills or harms a working or service animal without either legal privilege or consent of the owner.
11. Intentionally or knowingly allows any dog that is under the person's custody or control to interfere with, kill or cause physical injury to a service animal.
12. Recklessly allows any dog that is under the person's custody or control to interfere with, kill or cause physical injury to a service animal.
13. Intentionally or knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over a service animal with the intent to deprive the service animal handler of the service animal.
B. It is a defense to subsection A of this section if:
1. Any person exposes poison to be taken by a dog that has killed or wounded livestock or poison to be taken by predatory animals on premises owned, leased or controlled by the person for the purpose of protecting the person or the person's livestock or poultry, and the treated property is kept posted by the person who authorized or performed the treatment until the poison has been removed, and the poison is removed by the person exposing the poison after the threat to the person, or the person's livestock or poultry has ceased to exist.� The posting required shall provide adequate warning to persons who enter the property by the point or points of normal entry.� The warning notice that is posted shall be readable at a distance of fifty feet, shall contain a poison statement and symbol and shall state the word "danger" or "warning".
2. Any person uses poisons in and immediately around buildings owned, leased or controlled by the person for the purpose of controlling wild and domestic rodents as otherwise allowed by the laws of the state, excluding any fur‑bearing animals as defined in section 17‑101.
C. This section does not prohibit or restrict:
1. The taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by or pursuant to title 17.
2. Activities permitted by or pursuant to title 3.
3. Activities regulated by the Arizona game and fish department or the Arizona department of agriculture.
4. Any activity involving the possession, training, exhibition or use of a dog in the otherwise lawful pursuit of ranching or farming.
D. A peace officer, animal control enforcement agent or animal control enforcement deputy may use reasonable force to open a vehicle to rescue an animal if the animal is left in the vehicle as prescribed in subsection A, paragraph 7 of this section.
E. A person who is convicted of a violation of subsection A, paragraph 6 or 10 of this section is liable as follows:
1. If the working or service animal was killed or disabled, to the owner or agency that owns the working or service animal and that employs the handler or to the owner or handler for the replacement and training costs of the working or service animal and for any veterinary bills.
2. To the owner or agency that owns a working or service animal for the salary of the handler for the period of time that the handler's services are lost to the owner or agency.
3. To the owner for the owner's contractual losses with the agency.
F. An incorporated city or town or a county may adopt an ordinance with misdemeanor provisions at least as stringent as the misdemeanor provisions of this section, except that any ordinance adopted shall not prohibit or restrict any activity involving the possession, training, exhibition or use of a dog in the otherwise lawful pursuit of ranching or farming.
G. A person who violates subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 12 of this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.� A person who violates subsection A, paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11 or 13 of this section is guilty of a class 6 felony.
H. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Animal" means a mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian.
2. "Cruel mistreatment" means to torture or otherwise inflict unnecessary serious physical injury upon onan animal or to kill an animal in a manner that causes protracted suffering to the animal.
3. "Cruel neglect" means to fail to provide an animal with necessary food, water or shelter.
4. "Handler" means a law enforcement officer or any other person who has successfully completed a course of training prescribed by the person's agency or the service animal owner and who used a specially trained animal under the direction of the person's agency or the service animal owner.
5. "Service animal" means an animal that has completed a formal training program, that assists its owner in one or more daily living tasks that are associated with a productive lifestyle and that is trained to not pose a danger to the health and safety of the general public.
6. "Working animal" means a horse or dog that is used by a law enforcement agency, that is specially trained for law enforcement work and that is under the control of a handler.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Help us protect puppies sold over the internet!

Nancy Perry, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), is Senior Vice President of ASPCA Government Relations, where she oversees the ASPCA's legislative efforts and public policy at the local, state and federal levels. Under Nancy's leadership, the team works closely with lawmakers and citizen advocates to secure the strongest possible protections for animals through the passage of humane legislation and regulations.

For decades, I have worked closely with animal advocates who have agonized about the plight of dogs stuck in puppy mills (large-scale breeding facilities) living lives of misery. We have lamented the fact that, because the federal law predates the Internet, it has a massive loophole leaving several thousands of dogs sold online with absolutely no protections. We've been to courtrooms and to Congress, held hearings, briefings and press conferences ... but we have not yet found a way to fix this law to provide these dogs with even basic standards of care. But this year, there is reason for hope that we might literally save lives by finally closing the loophole.
The loophole
Currently, a gaping loophole in federal law exempts commercial breeders who sell dogs directly to consumers from any federal oversight. The law only requires breeders who sell dogs to pet stores or puppy brokers to be licensed and inspected by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), leaving breeding dogs stuck in puppy mills and the puppies sold directly to the public over the Internet, over the phone, or in newspaper ads completely unprotected.

What this means is that in many cases, no one is checking up on breeders who sell puppies directly to consumers over the Internet or via other mediums. As the ASPCA has seen firsthand, the photos of happy, healthy puppies posted on a breeder's website often grossly misrepresent what conditions are really like for these puppies and their parents. Thousands of dogs bred and raised by Internet and other retail breeders are often deprived of their most basic needs including clean water, space to move freely, and adequate veterinary care. The result of this irrational policy is that every day, amazing shelters and rescues around the country, including those in the Petfinder community, are forced to deal first-hand with the repercussions of inhumane breeding by rescuing, rehabilitating, and rehoming thousands of dogs from puppy mills. It is critically important that the USDA has the authority to oversee commercial breeders who exploit and mistreat animals for commercial gain, exacerbating the already staggering burden faced by shelters and rescues.

Why was there a loophole?Due to the wording of the federal Animal Welfare Act -- passed 40 years ago, before the existence of the Internet -- a large and growing population of commercial breeders has been able to escape licensing and regulation. Lawmakers drafting the Animal Welfare Act in the 1960s exempted retail pet stores from regulation, reasoning that oversight by customers would sufficiently protect animals -- if a pet store had a reputation for mistreating animals or the animals did not appear healthy, no one would patronize the business and it would fail. "Retail pet store" was later defined by USDA to include anyone selling puppies directly to the public, even if they are also the breeder.

What the drafters of the Animal Welfare Act did not foresee was the sale of puppies over the Internet and the ease with which these sales would allow retail breeders to sell unimaginable numbers of dogs without the customer ever laying eyes on his or her new pet prior to purchase or ever having the opportunity to observe the conditions in the kennel.

The fixIn mid-May, the USDA proposed a new rule to close this huge regulatory loophole! The proposed rule represents a meaningful effort by the USDA to target problematic, large-scale breeding operations that sell puppies to the public, sight unseen, by requiring these breeders to meet the minimum care standards of the Animal Welfare Act.

Under the proposed rule, breeders raising and selling dogs to customers who are not allowed to observe the animal available for sale on the facility's property would no longer be able to escape USDA licensing and inspections. These breeders would also be subject to penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation of the law. Closing this loophole is essential for the protection of thousands of dogs who have been vulnerable for far too long.

How you can helpSupport the USDA's efforts to protect puppies sold over the Internet by retail breeders! Visit ASPCA for more information on the proposed rule and to submit a comment in support of the USDA's proposed rule!

Another City Bans The Retail Sale of Dogs and Cats... YEA !!!

Retail Sale of Dogs, Cats Now Banned in Brick
Joining only a few municipalities nationwide to ban the retail sale of dogs and cats, the Brick Township council voted unanimously Tuesday night to pass an ordinance outlawing the practice.
The new ordinance bans businesses from selling, delivering, offering for sale, bartering or auctioning cats or dogs. It does, however, grandfather in current businesses that operate legally.
The new law covers both pet stores as well as businesses that register as kennels.
In Brick, just one such business exists: Breeders Association of America, Inc., on Route 70. The store, registered as a kennel, has been the subject of protests by animal rights activists who accuse the store of selling puppies from so-called "puppy mills."
Attempts by Brick Patch to interview the owner of the store have been met without a response.
But Breeders Association will be the last of its kind in Brick, thanks to the new law, officials said.
"We have one in existence. Let's keep it like that," said Councilman Dan Toth.
Councilman Domenick Brando said the process of developing the ordinance was "eye-opening" for him, and generated e-mails from as far away as Europe.
"I'm sure, down the road, this council or other councils will have to tweak things, but I think we have it right," Brando said.
The purpose of banning the retail sale of dogs and cats is to encourage those seeking a pet to adopt from a shelter or to purchase an animal from a reputable breeder. According to the Humane Society of the United States, retail stores often sell dogs and cats raised in so-called "puppy mills" and "kitten mills," where animals are kept in poor conditions and bred improperly, leading to lifelong health and behavioral issues.
Under state law, municipalities have the authority to regulate the existence of stores that sell animals, which set the legal basis for the township to act on the matter.
"I have prosecuted some dog cases in the past, so it's something I've had some experience with," said Council President John Ducey, who has worked as a municipal prosecutor. "It's something that's a very important issue … those who cannot speak for themselves."
The idea of banning the retail sale of dogs and cats in town was precipitated after one puppy store in town, Puppies Galore, was shut down by authorities in January. The store had been the recipient of multiple health code violations due to poor conditions, and 26 out of 39 puppies at the store were found to be sick when they were removed the day the store was shut down.
The store's owner and manager were both charged criminally with animal cruelty. Their trial is expected to begin Tuesday in Brick municipal court.
Violating the new ordinance in Brick could earn an offender a fine of up to $2,000 and 90 days in the Ocean County Jail.