Ohio state Sen. Jim Hughes is a primary sponsor of S.B. 95, commonly known as the puppy mill bill. A similar bill failed to pass during the last session. This version has been pending all year and appears no closer to passing.  

Constituents of Sen. Hughes met with him, or rather, his aide, last week to try to convince him to reject the unpopular S.B. 95 and substitute instead McKenzie's Law, a copy of which is attached below for downloading. (This proposed substitute bill is named for McKenzie, pictured here, who was rescued from an Ohio puppy mill.) Animal Law Coalition joins in a follow up letter to Sen. Hughes to explain:

Dear Sen. Hughes,

...There are serious concerns throughout Ohio about S.B. 95, which purports to regulate large scale commercial breeders and animal rescues.  My understanding is that the bill's only real supporter is Kellie DiFrischia and her organization, Columbus Dog Connection, as well as some of her friends. A similar bill was introduced during the last legislative session but failed to pass; this bill appears to be doomed as well.

We strongly suggest you consider McKenzie's Law as a substitute version. Our concern is only for the dogs trapped in the cruelty and misery of commercial breeding facilities.  Many states in the past two years have passed laws to regulate and limit commercial breeders or "puppy mills" which put profit above the welfare of the dogs.  Because Ohio has no such laws, "puppy mills" are proliferating in our state. 

We don't think S.B. 95, if it passes, will change that. Here is why:

 1. S.B. 95 contemplates establishment of a new state agency, a "kennel control authority" with authority to issue regulations for breeders and maintain a staff for licensing and inspections. The expense of a new bureaucracy is unnecessary and unlikely to result in real improvements for the dogs.  It's also unlikely to pass the legislature in this state which is strapped for cash during one of the worst recessions in history. 

Most importantly, this new bureaucracy is likely to mean more puppy mills in Ohio with unlimited numbers of breeding dogs.  I say this because the revenue from fees and penalties charged to the puppy mills will be necessary to support this new agency.  Puppy mills will be necessary to ensure the continuing existence of this new agency! S.B. 95, in effect, supports proliferation of puppy mills.

2.  S.B. 95 places no limits on the breeding. Virginia, Louisiana, Washington and Oregon have all passed laws limiting the numbers of breeding dogs kept by commercial breeders. A commercial breeder cannot provide humane care or proper socialization for unlimited numbers of dogs especially when the goal is to make a profit.  Of course, with limits on the numbers of breeding dogs, the kennel control authority could not generate the revenue necessary for its own support.  Again, S.B. 95 encourages more puppy mills with unlimited breeding.

Also, the cost of this centralized regulatory scheme will only increase.  The state and local communities will face substantial costs for seizure, veterinary care, shelter and placement of dogs from puppy mills that are allowed unlimited numbers of breeding dogs. It will be inevitable because large numbers of dogs simply cannot be cared for humanely.  Even if the bonding requirements are enforced, they won't cover these costs. A limit on the number of dogs would substantially limit the potential burden to the state and local communities as well as the cruelty to the dogs. 

3. S.B. 95 applies to breeders that produce "at least nine litters of puppies or at least forty puppies in any given calendar year" as well as intermediaries that handle "more than nine dogs annually in this state or who sell or gives one or more dogs to a pet store annually".  Many commercial breeders will go unregulated, yet the bill proposes that the kennel authority will regulate all animal rescues? This is a giveaway to commercial breeders. 

4.  S.B. 95 does not have the support of most dog wardens or animal control which will make enforcement difficult.  Also, this bill appears to strip away most local authority and control. The authority of dog wardens and humane officers appears to be substantially limited by this bill. They would only be able to report violations to kennel control inspectors and do not appear to have any authority to issue citations for existence of any conditions regulated by this bill or to seize or impound animals held in violation of these provisions. The bill contemplates that the kennel control authority will hire its own inspectors but will only require inspections every two years.  There are a number of excellent care requirements in the bill, but they will simply go unenforced. Puppy mills tend to operate in secret out of the public eye. It will thus be impossible to enforce most of these provisions with such a limited state inspection plan.  

These state inspectors will only be required to have training in "animal husbandry, kennel management, record keeping, and first aid".  These are dogs, Sen. Hughes, and it would be important to make sure inspectors have experience in dog behavior, training and care.

5. The bill also provides for limited injunctive relief. It is not clear that the attorney general could obtain an injunction to do other than stop violations of the Act.  It does not appear that a puppy mill could be shut down on an emergency basis or at all until all appeals of a denial, revocation or suspension of license are exhausted. Even seizure and impoundment of dogs kept in terrible conditions will be difficult under this bill.

6. The provisions for record keeping, particularly veterinary records, are vague and grossly inadequate.

The bottom line for the dogs:  little or no change. The breeding dogs and their puppies will still live in cages and with the very limited enforcement mechanism, there is likely to be little or no improvement in their conditions.

They will continue to live in squalid, maybe slightly larger cages with a little better lighting and ventilation and maybe less crowded and cleaner, but probably only during the two year inspection. There will be no exercise, and little, if any, veterinary care, insufficient nutritious food and clean water, no grooming or pest control except maybe right before or during the two year inspection. There will be no socialization or affection.  The dogs will continue to be bred over and over for years and subject to abuse. 

This bill seems more focused on creating a powerful state agency that will weaken the state and local governments' ability to stop or even control puppy mills.  

I urge you to re-think this and consider McKenzie's Law. ..... 

Yours truly....

Why McKenzie's Law Should Pass

There are thousands of commercial dog breeding kennels in Ohio. Because commercial dog breeders are virtually unregulated, Ohio is fast becoming a draw especially for large volume puppy mills, moving here from other states. They are moving to Ohio because other nearby states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Indiana along with a number of other states around the country have passed legislation to regulate them.  Without regulation, Ohio will soon be known as the puppy mill capital of the country. Ohioans do not want their state to be known for a business that thrives on animal cruelty. 

Also, without regulation, Ohio and its counties are losing much needed revenues. One puppy mill operator testified in the legislature last year that commercial dog breeders bring in $9 million per year to Holmes County alone. The state and local government did not receive, however, tax revenue from those sales of dogs. (Go to http://www.holmescountyexposed.com/ for more information.) That is because many of these places are not licensed or registered; the county as well as the state is losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in sales tax revenues. 

Here is why McKenzie's Law makes much more sense for Ohio:

1. Unlike the pending bill, McKenzie's Law only targets commercial dog breeders and dealers. It protects hobby breeders and reputable commercial breeders.

2. Unlike the pending bill, McKenzie's Law does not create a large, expensive bureaucracy. Even if the bureaucracy created by S.B. 95, the Kennel Control Authority, is eventually self-funding, it will still need must hundreds of thousands of dollars in start up costs. McKenzie's Law only requires breeders/dealers to get a local kennel or business license or conditional use permit, whatever the counties already require. Breeders and dealers who violate animal protection laws can't operate. Commercial breeders/dealers would also be required to get a vendor's license which would help the Dept of Taxation track them for tax purposes.

3. Unlike the pending bill, McKenzie's Law does not prevent local dog wardens and humane agents from having any say about puppy mills in their communities. McKenzie's Law will welcome their support and encourage enforcement by dog wardens and humane agents. McKenzie's Law provides broad enforcement authority at the local and state level but without the expensive state bureaucracy. McKenzie's Law allows broad statewide enforcement against commercial dog breeders of existing animal cruelty laws as well as the licensing and minimum care requirements. There is enforcement authority but without the expensive bureaucracy and loss of local control.

4. Unlike the pending bill, McKenzie's Law places limits on the number of breeding dogs per kennel. Virginia, Louisiana, Oregon and Washington have all passed these limits. It is undisputed that it is not profitable to provide humane care and treatment for dogs particularly in large numbers, more than 20 or so. Reputable breeders and hobby breeders should welcome this part of McKenzie's Law. Their businesses or hobby is undermined by these large puppy mills that are churning out puppies like they are toasters and keeping them in abhorrent conditions to make it profitable. This will also reduce the burden on local animal control who say up to 25% or more of dogs produced in mills end up in public shelters. Also, it is very costly to counties and cities when one of these mills must be shut down for cruelty and the animals cared for, provided veterinary care and placed elsewhere. McKenzie's Law will make that less likely to happen.

5. Unlike the pending bill, McKenzie's Law protects hobby breeders and reputable commercial breeders.

6. Unlike the pending bill, McKenzie's Law requires only commercial kennels, those with more than 5 breeding dogs, to meet minimum standards of care. It is not profitable to provide humane care and treatment for dogs particularly in large numbers, more than 20 or so. There is also less incentive for many commercial breeders to treat dogs humanely. They are often regarded as inventory. To guard against this cruelty, it is important to set minimum standards for commercial dog breeders.

7. McKenzie's Law protects consumers from commercial dog breeders or pet stores that sell puppies that are sick, diseased or have congenital defects or behavior problems.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Download McKenzie's Law and the Fact Sheet at the end of this article and email Animal Law  Coalition, lauraallen@animallawcoalition.com your comments and questions!

Download the Endorsement Form attached below, fill it out and send it in! 

Find your Ohio legislators here and write or call, send them a copy of McKenzie's Law and the attached Fact Sheet and urge them to support McKenzie's Law as a substitute for S.B. 95.   

Go to HolmesCountyExposed for more information on McKenzie's Law and Ohio puppy mills.