Update February 1, 2012: After more than six years of wrangling over the best way to regulate Ohio's growing number of puppy mills, the Senate Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources Committee approved a version of S.B. 130 that is much different from the last version introduced in 2011.  And, the full Senate has also unanimously approved the new version.  

Under the current version of S.B. 130 animal rescues must still obtain a license and provide information to the state Department of Agriculture about their foster homes, but they are no longer the target of extensive regulation as under earlier incarnations of the bill. Rescues can be inspected for compliance if there is a complaint, and inspectors can impound any dogs whose health and safety are believed to be in imminent danger. The Department of Agriculture will maintain a database of licensed animal rescues in the state.

The clear target of this latest version of S.B. 130 are "high volume breeders" and "dog retailers". A "high volume breeder" is "an establishment" that keeps breeding dogs that produce a minimum of 9 litters of puppies each year and sells 60 or more dogs each year. Litters are to be registered. But it is not clear how inspectors will determine the number of litters and sales. "High volume" breeders could escape regulation under this bill because of the difficulty inspectors who will only inspect once every 2 years may have in determining a breeder's number of litters and dogs sold. A similar definition in New York, for example, has left inspectors there frustrated in their efforts to identify which breeders they are supposed to regulate and likely allows breeders to escape regulation. 

A "dog retailer" is one who buy, sells or offers to sell dogs at wholesale for resale or who sells or gives at least one dog each year to pet stores.  Most dogs or puppies sold by pet stores come from puppy mills.

Medical kennels or veterinary hospitals, research kennels and public shelters are exempt from regulation under this bill.  Commercial and other dog breeders that are not "high volume" would still be required to obtain kennel licenses under current Ohio law and comply with the state's animal cruelty laws but are not regulated by this bill.  There is nothing in the bill that would prevent so called high volume breeders from having family members, for example, obtain separate licenses so that it appears there are several smaller operations not subject to regulation. It is also curious as to why every animal rescue must obtain a license and be subject to inspection, but any dog breeder whose dogs produce less than 9 litters annually or who sell less than 60 dogs each year are left unregulated. That's a lot of unregulated backyard breeders.

Under the bill approved by the Senate, a Commercial Dog Breeding Oversight Board would be established within the Department of Agriculture.  Unlike the Kennel Control Authority proposed under earlier versions of the bill, the Board would not be made up mostly of breeders or those that profit from breeding. Instead, the director of the Department of Agiriculture with consent of the Senate would be required to appoint 6 members to the Board: one who is from a county humane society, one who represents animal rescue organizations, one who is a veterinarian, one who is a county dog warden, one who is a representative of a professional dog breeding association and one member of the public. The state veterinarian would also serve on the Board. The Board would be tasked with coming up with standards of care for the dogs and a system for inspectors to rate high volume breeders which would be inspected by the Department at least once every 2 years. The Board would also provide input and evaluation of the Department's rules including whether the scheme actually prevents animal cruelty.

Opponents of this version of S.B. 130 point out that dogs will be regulated by the Department of Agriculture as they are "livestock" instead of companion animals. Earlier versions of the bill would have placed regulation over puppy mills under a new agency called the Kennel Control Authority, funded by fees and penalties imposed on the breeders. Under that concept, the Agency would have depended on the continued existence of the mills for its funding. There would really have been little or no incentive to shut down puppy mills. Under this latest version of S.B. 130, that is not the case. Also, it is typical for a state department of agriculture to regulate dog breeders and animal shelters. And, Ohio law makes clear that dogs have more protections as "companion animals". The problem with relying on the department, as with any centralized regulatory agency, is that it is likely to be aligned with those it is supposed to regulate. It would be much more effective if local wardens, humane agents and other local officials were provided with funding to help enforce the current animal cruelty laws and the standards of care issued by the Board for high volume breeders. More eyes on the dogs. Under this bill, the department is authorized to enter into agreements for local enforcement but is not required to do so. Dog wardens and humane agents are required to report any violations they see in performing their other duties and have authority to examine records required to be maintained under this bill. It's not clear, though, that without enforcement authority, dog wardens or humane agents would be in a position to observe violations. 

The new version of S.B. 130 fails to prohibit dog auctions or raffles. Nor does it stop anyone from bringing dogs into the state for sale at auctions or raffles. This despite the fact that Tuscarawas and Holmes counties serve as major distribution channels for buyers and sellers of dogs from 15 states, many of whom have long standing, repeated violations of the Animal Welfare Act and/or have been convicted of animal cruelty. Fortunately, a hard won ballot initiative to ban dog auctions and raffles in Ohio has been certified. The initiative now goes to the legislature for its consideration. For more ..... 

The bill, S.B. 130, dispenses with any licensing fees though there is a scheme for the director of agriculture to implement regarding applications, background checks, qualifications and insurance requirements as well as record keeping. Litters would be required to be registered. Vendor numbers assigned must be listed on any advertisement. This will help the state Taxation Commission track sales and collect sales taxes for dogs sold by breeders, something that has been difficult to do in the past.

The department's inspectors are to be trained in "animal husbandry", "kennel management", "record keeping" and "first aid". Hopefully, the training would also include enforcement of animal cruelty laws and standards of care for dogs as determined by the Board. The inspectors would rate high volume breeders during inspections and prepare reports of their inspections. They could (1) impose civil penalties for violations but only after there has been an opportunity for correction of the violation, (2) issue cease and desist orders and (3) request the attorney general obtain injunctions to enforce the requirements of the bill. Animals could be seized and impounded if the high volume breeder is in "material" violation of the law or there is imminent danger to the animals' health and safety.

Licenses could not be suspended or revoked, though, unless "the violation materially threatens the health and welfare of the dog."  This will make it much more difficult to shut down puppy mills. 

Monies collected for enforcement would go into a high volume breeder kennel control fund. 

Under the bill pet stores would be required to provide buyers of dogs with (1) record of a veterinary exam indicating the dog is free of "disease or physical deformity", (2) information about the dog's breeder, (3) telephone number of the department of agriculture, and (4) a money back guarantee that is valid for at least 21 days after purchase of the dog; a purchaser can collect on the guarantee by submitting a veterinarian's statement that the dog was examined within 14 days of purchase and has a significant disease, illenss or injury that was in existence at the time of the purchase. No word on what happens to the dog or who pays for any veterinary bills or other damages. Even if the pet store fails to comply with these requirements, the most a purchaseer could collect is $500 for veterinary bills and attorney's fees. The department is also supposed to enforce these requirements which are to be posted in the store.

Proponents of the bill say it is a strong bill that will for the first time impose regulations on at least the large commercial dog breeders in Ohio. Much will depend on how it is implemented and enforced. As other states such as Missouri, New York and Pennsylvania have found, Ohio is unlikely to be rid of its puppy mills without a clear definition of the breeders that are regulated, aggressive enforcement that includes more than a biennial inspection by the state, a ban on dog auctions, and clear, high standards of care such as sheltering in reasonably sized kennels instead of cages, unfettered access to exercise areas where dogs can run, regular veterinary care and the like. 

The bill now goes to the state House of Representatives. For more on last year's version of S.B. 130, read Animal Law Coalition's report below. 

Original report August 11, 2011: Despite what proponents may say, the latest version of Ohio Senate Bill 130 is not legislation that will stop or prevent puppy mills.

Instead, it is a bill that will enable puppy mills and hurt rescues.

S.B. 130 creates a new state bureaucracy called the Kennel Control Authority to regulate "high volume breeders", dog retailers, boarding kennels and all animal rescues and shelters.  The Board of KCA will be dominated by commercial breeders and supporters of the breeding industry.  There would be only one representative of the animal welfare community on the Board.  

The proponents claim S.B. 130 is "self funded". That means the agency's existence, the director job it will create, inspectors and office staff, will depend on puppy mills. The funding for the new bureaucracy is to come from licensing fees and fines. The agency will have no incentive at all to shut down puppy mills or do anything that might mean a puppy mill would close or lose profits. It will be in the new bureaucracy's interest to have more mills. 

It is telling that S.B. 130 also fails to ban or even restrict at all the Ohio dog auctions that serve as major distribution channels for puppy mills in 15 states. Many of these mill operators operate despite repeated and long standing violations of the Animal Welfare Act. For more on a ballot initiative underway in Ohio to shut down dog auctions.....  

The S.B. 130 proponents' comparison of regulation of puppy mills by KCA to oversight for "restaurants" or "hair salons" is also telling. Restaurants and hair salons are generally positive businesses that no one would want to close. A "high volume breeder", driven by profits, not the well being of dogs, a puppy mill, is hardly a desirable business.  And dogs are not the same as a hair cut or a sandwich, a toaster, television or any other consumer goods or services that are produced for public consumption.  They are living beings, not something to mass produce.

Licensing agencies dedicated to a particular profession or industry tend to promote and protect the businesses they oversee. The people that get hurt by a bad hair cut or medical malpractice, for example, have other recourse besides complaints to a licensing agency. Dogs don't. And they should not have to rely on a pro- breeder agency to protect them.

KCA would require substantial startup funding from the state; it is not free to create a new state bureaucracy.  Yet, proponents have refused to acknowledge that an appropriation will be required to fund offices, salaries and benefits for inspectors and office staff; equipment and the like for a new bureaucracy at a time when the recession has left the state as well as taxpayers strapped for funds.

S.B. 130 proponents claim a central bureaucracy to enable high volume dog breeders is better than relying on local or even cross-county or existing state enforcement agencies to inspect, penalize and shut down breeders in violation of the law. Only if the goal is to ensure the continuation of puppy mills.  The interest here should not be the breeders or even the convenience of local dog wardens. It is not acceptable to tell taxpayers they must fund a new state agency that will only enable high volume puppy mills because local law enforcement may not want "more work".  The dog wardens are already supposed to be enforcing dog kennel licensing requirements. The bill should instead preserve local control, eliminate the necessity of a central bureaucracy and allow local law enforcement including dog wardens, humane agents, health officials as well as existing state agencies to conduct inspections, issue cease and desist orders and refer violations for imposition of civil or criminal penalties. Law enforcement, dog wardens and humane agents in other counties could be called on to help. Fees and penalties would fund local enforcement, not a new bureaucracy dedicated to the promotion and preservation of high volume breeders.  

A troubling aspect of S.B. 130 is that is fails to put in place reporting and disclosure mechanisms that will allow the Ohio State Tax Commission to track commercial breeders and collect sales taxes. 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 governments did not receive tax revenue from those sales of dogs. (Go to http://www.holmescountyexposed.com/ for more information.) That is because many of these commercial breeding operations are not licensed or registered; the county as well as the state is losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in sales tax revenues.  The state has estimated losses of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in sales tax not collected from dog breeders.

Also, S.B. 130 would leave thousands of puppy mills and backyard breeders unregulated in Ohio.

Curiously, S.B. 130 gives carte blanche authority to the KCA to regulate rescues. The bill states KCA will issue "[r]equirements and procedures governing animal rescues for dogs, including the licensing and inspection of and record keeping by animal rescues for dogs, in addition to the requirements and procedures established in this chapter". Yet, the KCA Board would only have one representative from an animal welfare organization such as a spca or humane society. An agency run by breeders and the cottage industries they feed would be regulating rescues in Ohio.

Why else S.B. 130 doesn't work for Ohio:

*Actually, it is far from clear the KCA would really be able to identify even "high volume breeders". The bill awkwardly defines a "high volume breeder" to mean a breeder whose dogs produce at least nine litters of puppies and who sells at least 60 adult dogs or puppies a year.  How will KCA know how many dogs a breeder sells? Go through the newspaper or online ads and count the dogs offered for sale by a breeder? New York's inspectors are hampered by a similar definition. They will tell you it is time consuming and often impossible to determine whether a breeder has sold the requisite number of dogs and thus should be regulated.

** It is not clear how dogs would be assured exercise under S.B. 130 if the small runs required are not attached to the enclosures where they are living.