NJ Legislators Introduce Bill to Crack Down on 'Puppy Stores'
The "Healthy Puppies and Kittens Assurance Act" aims to stop the sale of dogs and cats from so-called "puppy mills"
A group of New Jersey lawmakers have introduced a bill they say will eliminate the sale of dogs and cats in New Jersey from so-called "puppy mills."
The proposal comes just over two months after Puppies Galore, a pet store in the southern New Jersey town of Brick, was shut down by authorities when 26 of the 39 dogs being held there were found to be sick.
Sen. Jim Holzapfel and Assemblymen Dave Wolfe and Greg McGuckin (all R-Ocean) have introduced the "Healthy Puppies and Kittens Assurance Act" which the group said in a joint statement Monday will place strict regulations on pet stores that sell animals from puppy and kitten mill breeders.
The bill establishes a state registry of breeders and pet dealers who will have to provide information on the health and breeding history of a cat or dog being sold. The bill creates what is effectively an animal birth certificate, called a health certificate, which must remain with the animal throughout its breeding life and be updated annually.
The health certificate regulation would apply to both in-state and out-of-state breeders and pet dealers.
The bill also prohibits breeding practices common to "puppy mills" and limits the selling of cats or dogs as pets to 25 animals per year per breeder.
Breeders selling cats or dogs as pets in New Jersey, under the proposal, would have to annually register with the Department of Health, which would be published as public record. During registration, breeders would be required to sign a document attesting to compliance with federal and state law concerning the proper breeding, care and treatment of animals.
"By requiring registration of breeders, providing purchaser with information about their future pet and imposing heavy penalties on violators, individuals and pet shops will be encouraged to purchase their cat or dog from a reputable breeder,” said Holzapfel in the statement. "This would eliminate the market for selling cats or dogs from puppy mills with poor and unhealthy conditions."
The law also provides a process for the revocation of licenses to sell dogs or cats if a breeder violates the law. Any breeder or dealer who had previously been convicted of animal cruelty would be automatically disqualified.
The owner of the Puppies Galore store – Maria De Santis, of Old Bridge – and manager Nathan "Nat" Sladkin, of Farmingdale, are both facing animal cruelty charges in connection with the condition of the Hooper Avenue store.
The Brick Township council is currently researching a potential ban on any new stores that sell dogs or cats within the township's borders.
The bill also cracks down on pets brought into New Jersey from other states, where puppy mills are often located.
A certificate of health prepared by a veterinarian will be required for all pets transported into New Jersey for sale by a dog dealer, kennel or pet shop. This certificate will include the pet’s age, health, origin, and the date and information about the pet’s rabies vaccination
Finally, the bill establishes the Canine and Cat Health Board which would be composed of the state veterinarian, the commissioner of health and senior services, the director of the division of consumer affairs, the president of the New Jersey Veterinary Medical Association and three members of the public who are members of a recognized pet advocacy organization or are licensed as a kennel, dog, dealer, pet dealer or pet shop.
"By limiting the number of dogs and cats the breeders sell to pet dealers we can stop these puppy mills and puppy stores from selling unhealthy animals," said Wolfe.
The bills are S-1840 and A-2746.
onafixedincome
10:40 am on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Oh, bullmanure.
These legislative efforts are yet another way to chip support from under breeders of ALL kinds. Putting their oomph behind better enforcement and more frequent inspections under the existing Animal Welfare Act would make a heck of a lot more sense.
Any time you have live animals moving from place to place; any time you have animals exposed to the public, you are GOING to have some incidence of disease--just like when you take your kindergartener to school for the first time. It doesn't matter if it is a shelter, a store, a breeder, a rescue, or just an owner taking their animals to the kennel or groomer.
Disease can be managed, but it cannot be eliminated. It certainly cannot be legislated away.
Karen Banda
12:46 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Dear onafixedincome, do a little research on puppy mills then get back to us. Right now all I can say is HOORAY for a step in the right direction.
onafixedincome
3:59 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Oh, I have...I've helped process dogs from a substandard breeding facility/hoarder case, too. But one of the biggest problems with the animal producers that ARE licensed through USDA is lack of adequate enforcement and inspection.
Those that are NOT USDA licensed, the stores shouldn't be buying from anyway...and since the pet stores are under USDA/Animal Welfare Act jurisdiction anyway, they are required to keep track of the license #s of those from whom they buy.
Up the number of inspectors and make it practical for the USDA licensed facilities to be inspected and improved, and I suspect much of the 'disease issues' will go way down simply because of better education and improved disease surveillance overall.
I'm not defending the seriously substandard breeding facilities which really DO keep animals in lousy conditions; I don't think anyone really can.
BUT...Further limiting and licensing only drives people underground, making them less likely to take their animals to the veterinarian regularly, leading to more disease, more genetic issues that veterinary counseling might help avoid, and leading to lesser quality care.
More restrictive legislation just isn't the answer here.
Sandy
6:34 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Than whats the answer,since so many mill puppies are suffering nationwide? There are thousands of these puppymills across the US,and most of them in substandard conditions.
onafixedincome
10:40 pm on Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Get USDA the funds to hire sufficient inspectors, using specifically-trained vet techs as well as vets, and let them actually enforce the AWA as written. Right now, they don't have the ability to do so...and things get missed, and problems rise.
Seems a reasonable place to start rather than making more legislation that eats away at the rights of all animal owners/breeders as well as at the funding available for anti-cruelty work and enforcement.
Vet Barnes
5:36 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
That is the mantra today that we are over run with puppy mills. HSUS and THLN came to Texas and declared we were over run with puppy mills and so we must have a law to stop them. Such laws do nothing to stop abuse, but the cruelty laws already on the books do stop them. But making laws that actually harm animals is not the answer. Both THLN and HSUS representatives lied to the state legislators and the sponsors of this bill that they could easily get 600 kennels to be licensed, But no one bothered to check that there were only 34 kennels in Texas licensed by the USDA. Always HSUS comes into a state shouting puppy mill abuse and saying thousand of animals are suffering. But you never see more than two or three raids within each state they claim have thousands of puppy mills. What HSUS wants is what all animal rights cult members want and that is no pets at all. So they lie to the public so you will give money to HSUS to take care of these sad eyed puppies and kittens. HSUS gives less than 1% of the 150 million it takes in. Instead of helping animals they try to pass laws that make keeping animals more difficult and costly.
Vet Barnes
5:36 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Texas has animal cruelty laws already on the books and that is how you get to substandard kennels. Both HSUS and THLN lied to get HB1451 put in place and they also stacked the breeder advisory committee with former THLN and HSUS members. So what happened, well, THLN wants cages that allow dogs to be injured in the car. They want temperatures that kill new born puppies. Did you know a dog's natural temperature is 101. Did you know that huskies love 20 degree weather and toy dogs don't. Did you know that new born puppies must be kept at 98 degrees the first 3 weeks of life or they die. Well evidently HSUS and THLN didn't know as they mandated temps between 45 and 85. And what was their response when told puppies must be kept at 98 degrees? We will fine you if you put your puppies at 98 degrees. Its clear THLN wants dead puppies. They want to call all open grid flooring "wire" and ban it. They don't want the public to know that what 85% of all veterinarians use is rubber or vinyl coated flat wire floors that are soft to the feet and yet are open enough to allow pee and fecal matter to fall out of the puppy's way. No THLN and HSUS want your puppies to sit in fecal matter so they can call you an abuser. They want your puppies to get sick and die by mandating concrete flooring that catches fecal matter. To keep puppies clean all day you would have to follow them around and catch pee and feces every 3o minutes. This is not practical or sanitary. Open grid flooring is sanitary.
Terry Ward
11:26 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Barnes is no vet...
'Barnes' is a doppelganger.
Terry Ward
5:36 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
I smell a rat...onafixedincome sounds all too familiar.
NAIA perhaps?
That "owner/breeder" crapola SO gives you away.
After the Proposition B fiasco in Missouri, breeders got NO rights thank you very much.
Beware the puppy-mill apologist lurking behind the anti-legislation rhetoric..scratch the surface and woohoo! the AKC and the NRA and the Farm Bureau and every other anti-humane twerp on the planet.
Your rant might work in Missouri onafxedincome, but this is New Jersey.
People actually THINK here.
Terry Ward
8:19 pm on Wednesday, April 11, 2012
"I smell a rat...onafixedincome sounds all too familiar. NAIA perhaps?
That "owner/breeder" buzzword SO gives you away.
After the Proposition B fiasco in Missouri, breeders got NO rights thank you very much.
Beware the puppy-mill apologist lurking behind the anti-legislation rhetoric..scratch the surface and woohoo! the AKC and the NRA and the Farm Bureau and every other anti-humaniac on the planet.
Such propaganda might work in Missouri onafxedincome, but this is New Jersey. People actually THINK here."
onafixedincome
9:40 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Hate to tell you this, Terry, but I'm not NAIA, although I am on their mailing list. I'm just a responsible animal owner who breeds animals for human consumption, who wants to see SOLUTIONS to the problem, not just more and more money-hogging legislation which punishes or prohibits any and all breeding or keeping of many animals.
If you 'think', you're sure not showing it off, Terry.
Give us some reasons WHY the suggested solution wouldn't help, hm? Why and how would giving USDA the ability to adequately and regularly inspect all USDA licensed breeders NOT improve animal welfare for animals bred to the pet trade?
Personally, I think that shelters and rescues should ALSO be USDA inspected--they do sell animals just as a random-source dealer would, so they should be regulated the same way, yes?
I'm waiting with interest for a reply. :) Hopefully, several! :)
Terry Ward
4:41 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
If you " breed animals for human consumption" what EXACTLY are you doing ranting on a companion animal discussion?
Lookin' for a new revenue stream?
More gibberish from the folks who say our pets are 'livestock'.
MY PETS ARE NOT LIVESTOCK!
MY PETS ARE NOT LIVESTOCK!
Shelters and recues 'sell' animals?????
What an unconscionable inhumane brainless joke.
This has Humanewatch slime oozing all over it.
Keep your mitts off our pets farmerboy/girl.
OUR PETS ARE NOT FOR SLAUGHTER!
Stick to your pigs.
Stick to your pigs.
onafixedincome
1:35 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Because I too have pets, Terry...I bought them fair and square from the local humane society.
I do think you need to work on your reading for comprehension, though...I asked some questions, and I'd really like to hear a sensible answer rather than the usual unitelligible emotion-laden personal attack typical of the animal supremacist.
By definition, the exchange of money for goods is a sale. You can call it anything you want, but even in CA's recent law SB917, they had to explicitly exempt shelters, rescues, and humane societies specifically for that reason. If you keep up on what shelters etc are doing, they have 'sale prices' where they lower the 'adoption fee' for certain animals or at certain times of the year; how is that different than, say, Tiffany's having a sale on 'red and green stoned rings just in time for Christmas'??
Answer: It's not. It's all marketing that is commonly used in all sorts of commerce. Therefore, they should be regulated and inspected like any other animal dealer.
In my book, no, actual PETS are NOT for slaughter...but livestock, like the animals I raise (and no, they aren't pigs), most certainly are raised for that purpose, with one exception....my 'specials'--the animals I am attached to, which have homes here until they die of spoiled old age. Pets, if you will....from livestock.
So. Still waiting for a sensible answer from someone on why my suggested solution-starter won't help....