Update: The Ohio legislature is in summer recess.

Update May 24, 2008:  In a committee hearing inexplicably cut short this past week, there was more testimony both for and against this bill, H.B. 223.

Kellie DiFrischia, president of the Columbus Dog Connection and co-author of the bill, said the Ohio puppy mill bill would target "grievous offenders who can't possibly care for hundreds of dogs by themselves."  DiFrischia said the measure would create "what most Ohio citizens would consider extremely minimum standards to care for a dog".  She insisted the proposal would have a minimal impact on "reputable breeders."

Dawn Smitley, Tuscarawas County humane officer, said without the bill, dog wardens and local law enforcement agencies will not respond to complaints about the deplorable conditions in puppy mills. 

"I ask you, how can these people walk through dead rats, piles of dog feces, crying puppies in crates and the most horrific smell that you can ever imagine and not do anything?" she said. "By passing this bill and creating standards of care for puppy mills, you can stop this, you can be the voice for these dogs and puppies that cannot speak against the suffering and anguish that they are forced to go through every day."

Barbara Roberts, of Dublin, presented the committee with more than 1,500 letters from citizens expressing their support for the measure.  "All we ask for is the very minimal standards of care: a kennel free from a build up of urine and feces, clean food and water, and veterinary care when needed," she said.

John Silva, president of the Ohio County Dog Wardens' Association, said that while dog wardens will play a significant role in enforcing the new laws, "I have always said that no one agency should be involved in kennel inspections....You will need all the existing and new or other law enforcement officers available to uphold these laws responsively and responsibly."

Breeders testified in opposition, one noting the bill is "a very well thought-out plan to bankrupt the commercial dog breeders in Ohio...There are two ways ... to shut down a business - make it illegal or make it too expensive to continue to operate....This bill takes the latter approach."

(Special thanks to Mary O'Connor-Shaver, Columbus Top Dogs, http://www.columbustopdogs.com/ for the summary.)

For more on this bill and other testimony before the committee, read Animal Law Coalition's earlier reports below.

Update May 5, 2008:  Testimony continued this past week on the Ohio puppy mill bill before an Ohio legislative committee. One animal welfare organization, All Tails Are Waggin, presented the committee with 500 letters in support of the bill. More humane agents and animal welfare advocates testified in support of the bill.

Most of the commercial dog breeders or puppy mills in Ohio are located in Holmes County. Probably one of the most vocal opponents of this bill is Ervin Raber who formerly owned the notorious dog auction in that county and who still operates a large mill. Raber was at the hearing, but his appearance and testimony may have backfired, making the point that puppy mills are a deplorable, inhumane factory for dogs.

Kellie DiFrischia , co-author of the bill, of http://www.columbusdogconnection.com/, testified using photos of Raber's mill. Raber all but acknowledged the squalid conditions of the structure, telling the committee the photos were of his "old" kennel that he was tearing down to sell for scrap.

Then, as DiFrischia put it, "Raber bragged about  his $3000 vet fill for 2007....[When he said that,] there was a collective groan of disgust [in the hearing room]."  DiFrischia explained that at $3000 per year for 1545 dogs including puppies, Raber was confessing he only spent $1.94 in 2007 on each dog for vet care.     

Click here for more on the Holmes County dog auction and for more on mills in Holmes County, go to http://holmescountyexposed.com/08/ Also, watch the video at the end of this article.

Click here to contact committee members.  Write or call now and urge them to support this bill, S. 273.

Read Animal Law Coalition's earlier reports for more on this bill.

                                       Update April 26, 2008: The Ohio puppy mill bill, H.B. 223/S.B. 173, has been languishing in the legislature. But no more. The Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Affairs Committee is holding hearings on this bill.

Plan to attend the next hearing on April 30, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. in the Senate Building South Hearing Room in Columbus. Also, and if you cannot attend, click here to contact committee members.  Write or call now and urge them to support this bill, S. 273.

A copy of S.B. 173 and a list of its sponsors can be found here. For more information on puppy mills, watch the video at the end of this article.

This past week the committee heard from several people. Dr. Robert Knapp, immediate past president of the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association, said the bill will "create a humane standard for breeding dogs in Ohio." John Price, a volunteer humane officer for the Perry County Humane Society, testifed commercial breeders "use dogs like livestock" and spend as little as possible for their care. He pointed out the difficulty in enforcing existing laws as a humane officer. Price said the bill would expand enforcement atuhority for humane officers.  

Several humane officers testified about rescues they had been involved in of dogs in terrible conditions in the virtually unregulated mills in Ohio.

Predictably, breeders opposed the bill. Ervin Raber, one of the commercial dog breeders of Ohio's puppy mill capital in Holmes County, insisted the breeders provided a high level of care and are essentially self-policing. He claimed that puppy mills generate $9 million per year for the county.

Other breeders claimed the bill would make it too costly to operate their mills. Some said the bill threatened to "micromanage" their businesses and its provisions would be difficult to enforce. 

For more on the bill and the controvery it has generated in Ohio, read Animal Law Coalition's original report.       

Original report: The Ohio legislature is considering a bill to regulate  dog breeders also known as puppy mills.

There are only 187 Ohio commercial dog breeders registered with the USDA, but Kellie DiFrischia of Columbus Dog Connection who has been assisting Rep. Jim Hughes with this landmark bill, estimates there are actually "thousands" of such unregulated breeders in Ohio.

There is clearly dissension in the animal welfare community about whether the bill is strong enough. Some in the animal welfare community believe the exclusion of key people knowledgeable about puppy mills from this process is fatal to the bill.  It has received at best lukewarm support and in many cases, outright opposition, from the animal welfare community.

The breeders are likely only too happy to allow the animal welfare community's uncertainty about the bill stymie efforts to pass it, once again leaving Ohio with no regulation at all for thousands of puppy millers.

Under this bill, H.B. 223/S.B. 173, these dog breeders and brokers that sell more than 25 dogs annually or keep more than 8 dogs for breeding would be required for the first time to obtain a license from the state.  But medical kennels, dog research kennels and veterinarians are exempt.

Those dog breeders required to be licensed would be subject to regulation by an agency that would be created under the state Department of Agriculture.   They would be assigned a license number; any dog breeders and brokers that solicit business, meaning offers to sell dogs, must provide a license number and also a vendor number from the department of taxation.

The Department would issue regulations for licensing, inspections, and enforcement and care of the dogs and recordkeeping by the breeders.

It is not clear, though, that the Department of Agriculture wants to house this new agency. A representative of The Humane Society of the United States reports that the department does not want to house this new agency, that no department does.

Some animal welfare advocates do not agree the department should oversee an agency to regulate dog breeders. Rescuer Zaron Von Meter, http://www.holmescountyexposed.com/  notes, "The Department of Agriculture regulates livestock. If that department oversees puppy mills, they are likely to look at the dogs as livestock, commodities for buying and selling and not social animals that should be treated as pets. The Department will at best enforce minimal standards of care and do what it can to support this trade in dogs." Von Meter suggests this new agency be housed under another department.   

Another criticism of the bill leveled by animal welfare advocates is that it does not eliminate or regulate puppy mill auctions. Click here for more on dog auctions. Or visit http://www.holmescountyexposed.com/

Minimum Standards of Care

The bill itself provides minimum standards for care. There are no limits on breeding and dogs would still be allowed to be caged 24 hours each day, 7 days a week without exercise.  But there must be sufficient room for the dog to stand, lie down, and turn around without touching the top or sides of the cage or other dogs or dislodging the food or water bowl. In other words, dogs can no longer be crowded into tiny cages, forced to lie on top of each other, unable to stand or move.

Under the minimum standards the cages must be properly lighted and ventilated, sanitary, clean and free of more than 12 hours' accumulation of feces and urine and have a clean, dry resting board and flooring material that can be sanitized and will not injure the dogs' feet.  The dogs must have access to clean, unfrozen water and adequate, wholesome food. The dogs must be given shade during hot weather though it is not required the shade reduce the temperatures more than 5 degrees and only then if it is over 90 degrees F. Another provision requires that the dogs have shelter from the elements. Dogs must also be provided access to an indoor area or clean straw. A clean whelping box must be available.

The bill does specify that dogs must be provided with appropriate veterinary care and treatment for any illness, injury or disease. The bill spells out the dogs must be properly groomed and provided with all vaccinations including boosters, treatment for worms and heartworm preventative as advised by a veterinarian and protection from fleas, ticks, worms and insects.  Dogs would only be euthanized by a veterinarian or someone acting under a veterinarian's direction.

Von Meter notes the requirements for veterinary care are vague. She said, "I have seen breeding dogs sewn up with yarn."  She believes practices like this would continue under this bill.

Her greatest concern is the lack of requirements for exercise and socialization. "Dogs from puppy mills where they have lived crowded in with other dogs with no socialization, little human contact, have behavior issues. Dogs from the mills can be aggressive, very fearful, mentally damaged. They can take years to rehabilitate or just to get to the point where you can manage their behavior, if they ever get there.  It is critical to address the socialization these dogs need."  

DiFrischia points out, "These minimum standards are a start.  We need to get an agency in place with licensing and inspections and enforcement." She adds, "[I]n our original draft, dogs are required to have 2 hours of human contact or opportunity to exercise outside of their primary enclosure. This was somehow removed."

Broad Enforcement Authority

The bill offers broad authority for the enforcement of the regulations. The bill directs the department of agriculture to develop criteria for background checks of these dog breeders.  No one who has been convicted or pleaded guilty to violation of animal protection laws in Ohio or elsewhere can obtain a license as a breeder or broker.

The bill would allow for unannounced inspections as long as the inspector identifies himself and the purpose of the visit.  In fact, the bill would allow the Department of Agriculture or Attorney General to apply for a search warrant if there is interference with any inspection.  The breeder or broker that interferes with an inspection can be liable for costs incurred in obtaining a warrant.

The Department of Agriculture would also have the authority to seize dogs held in a manner that "materially violates" the regulations "and if the dog's health or safety appears to be in imminent danger". The Department would have authority to adjudicate not only violations and licensing issues but whether a breeder or broker should lose ownership rights to the dogs.  The Department could issue subpoenas for records and compel witnesses to attend hearings. The Department could after a hearing make a determination that dogs should be permanently relinquished.  The Department could enter into agreements with rescues and humane societies for the care and placement of these dogs which these groups could then adopt out if they are permanently relinquished to the Department.

Dog wardens and humane officers would also be required to report violations of the regulations. They would have the right to inspect records.   

Breeders with more than 15 dogs would be required to maintain insurance or a bond with the state as beneficiary to cover the costs of care and housing for the dogs in the event they are seized or impounded.

The bill also sets forth a scheme of civil fines and authority to request an injunction to stop violations of the regulations.

The bill provides for an oversight commission made up of members of the legislature and 8 people appointed by the governor including 2 from animal welfare groups, a county dog warden, a veterinarian, one from the dog breeding industry, one from the AKC, one from the pet store industry and one from the general public.  The commission would make recommendations to the Department, conduct inspections and generally determine whether the regulations and administration by the Department was effective.

Puppy Lemon Law

The bill would require all direct or retail sellers of puppies to provide purchasers with the names and contact information about each prior owner. If a puppy less than 90 days old is sold or transferred, the bill would require registration of its litter. 

The bill gives pet stores a choice: All dogs sold by pet stores must offer a certificate of health from a veterinarian that the dog is free of disease, illness, or injury, or, a "money back guarantee" if within 21 days of the sale a purchaser presents a veterinarian's affidavit obtained within 14 days of purchase and that state the dog had "significant disease, illness, or injury that was in existence at the time of the purchase of the dog." 

Under the proposed law pet stores would be required to provide purchasers prior to the sale the name and contact information of the breeder and broker. Pet stores would be required to post these obligations in their stores along with the contact information for the Department of Agriculture.

Pet stores that violate these provisions would be "liable to the purchaser of the dog for an amount that is equal to three times the purchase price of the dog plus any veterinary expenses of not more than five hundred dollars that are incurred by the purchaser within one year after the date of the purchase of the dog."  The pet store would also be liable for any attorney fees and costs incurred by the purchaser. Oh, and the buyer gets to keep the dog.    

Funding

Funding for the bill would come from licensing fees and fines.

Status of the bill

The House version of the bill, H.B. 223, is pending in the House Committee on State Government & Elections. Click here to contact members of the committee and urge them to support this important step in freeing dogs from the misery of puppy mills.

A complete copy of the current bill and a list of its sponsors can be found here.

The Senate version, S.B. 173, is identical. This bill was introduced by Ohio state Sen. Gary Cates.