Year: 2011

Categories
Critters Legal, Laws, and Regs

Koster’s Handling of Unlicensed Facility demonstrates failures in laws

Chris Koster, Missouri Attorney General, has published another press release about a court injunction against an unlicensed breeder. His office states that the breeder violates several ACFA regulations:

Koster said Shirley Gilbert owns Wolfgang’s Puppies and Gee Gee’s Yorkies, a commercial breeding facility in Aurora. Department of Agriculture inspections uncovered numerous violations of the Animal Care Facilities Act. Gilbert failed to provide clean, dry bedding and wind and rain breaks to protect the dogs from the elements; failed to keep food receptacles clean and sanitized; failed to collect and remove animal waste; failed to clean and sanitize the facility or to provide adequate space for the dogs; failed to provide housing that protected the animals from injury; and failed to provide adequate veterinary care to the animals, many of which had matted coats and one that had severe eye complications.

The Attorney General’s office states that he’s obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting the breeder from selling dogs, but selling dogs without a license is a Class A misdemeanor. Why, on earth, was this woman not charged with a crime?

In addition, the press release details horrendous conditions for the dogs, but nothing, nothing, about rescuing the dogs or removing the dogs from what sounds to be extremely dangerous conditions. In an article in the News-Leader, we find out that the breeder is allowed to keep the 22 adult dogs and 12 puppies until the June 10 hearing…and possibly later.

Rather than make things better for dogs, the recent actions to gut Proposition B have left things in worse shape then what we had even before Proposition B. AG Koster, this is nothing to brag about.

If you agree, contact the Attorney General’s office, and tell Koster to do more than just file a restraining order when dogs lives are at risk.

Categories
Critters Legal, Laws, and Regs

S & S Family Puppies: “Good” and Bad News

CBS has announced that the Missouri Attorney General has closed down S & S Family Puppies in Milan, Missouri. S & S Family Puppies was the top of the list in the Missouri Dirty Dozen report.

I can’t find any official announcement at the Attorney General’s web site. Nor is there a history of this item being taken to court. In fact, the news may not be as good as it sounds, as noted in a comment to the CBS story (update Did find information on court case, and copy of consent decree, as noted at end of story):

WAIT. THE FACILITY IS SHUT DOWN BUT THE DOGS ARE NOT SAFE! THEY ARE JUST BEING MOVED. READ BELOW (from today’s HSUS email). It’s disgusting.

The Stephensons’ dogs, however, are not going to rescue groups or shelters where they could be adopted into loving families. Instead, the state is allowing them to be transferred or sold to other commercial breeding facilities. Forty of the dogs are scheduled to be sold to the highest bidder this Saturday at the Southwest Kennel Auction in Wheaton, Mo.

And because only the Stephensons were mentioned in the Attorney General’s statement, we suspect many of these dogs may be transferred to a second kennel operated by another family member, Brandi Cheney. USDA records list Stephenson and Cheney as co-owners of S & S Family Puppies. In fact, last year several aggrieved consumers sued Diana Stephenson and Cheney under the Missouri consumer protection law. The consumers alleged that Stephenson and Cheney sold them sick puppies but misled them into believing the puppies were healthy. A copy of the plaintiffs’ complaint was sent to Attorney General Koster.

Nevertheless, as detailed in our March 2011 Dirty Dozen update, Cheney recently obtained a USDA license for a new kennel, called Circle B Farms, which has also been cited for severe animal care violations.

Thus, the surviving dogs likely won’t have a chance at a better life, but merely a life in another puppy mill. This is unacceptable. Puppy mill operators who have repeatedly violated both state and federal laws should not be permitted to move or sell their surviving “stock” to other puppy mill operators. The dogs have already suffered untold trauma and should not be transferred to another breeding facility, especially considering that local and national animal groups are prepared to help these dogs. It’s time they find a loving home.

(Comment quote from a story at HSUS)

Southwest Auction is having a consignment kennel auction today, and if you look down towards the end of the page you’ll find, in small print, a listing for Diana Stephenson, the co-owner of S & S. I notice that, unlike other auctions, there is no note from the auction house about what a good breeder this breeder is; no testimony from the kennel vet. More disconcerting is that the number of dogs listed does not account for the number of dogs S & S had at their last inspection.

(Missouri MDA inspections)

I’m greatly disturbed to hear that the person listed as co-owner of S & S, Brandi Cheney, obtained new USDA and MDA licenses. The USDA inspections for this newly licensed kennel already show violations. Cheney has also sold puppies under another name, CC Puppies, with a different license, but the same types of violations. By the license fee Cheney paid for her newest license, she has a significant number of dogs, which supports the HSUS statement that all that’s happened is that the dogs have been shifted from one of the owners to the other, and this “victory” is nothing more than a sham.

(Note the reference to a second license in the recent USDA inspection report for S & S Family Puppies. Also note that both the Stephensons and Cheney have been sued by puppy buyers.)

update I did find a story on the court judgment. It is a consent decree, which means the Stephenson’s agreed to it. But look at the requirements: the facility is required to transfer dogs to another ACFA licensed facility. That’s it. Both Director Hagler and AG Koster brag about the outcome, but all that’s happened is that the poor dogs have been transferred from one puppy mill to another. This is not a victory.

Second update KMOV covers the fact that Stephensons can keep the profits from the dog auction. The story also mentions the fact that the breeders’ daughter is still licensed and able to “buy” her parents’ dogs.

A sham. A total sham. That’s what the “modification” of Proposition B is giving us: a mockery of a law.

Categories
Voting

The Voter Protection Act

Inspired, in part, by the repeal of Proposition B (not to mention the modification and/or repeal of several other voter initiatives), the Voter Protection Act would modify the state Constitution to require a three-fourths majority vote to modify a citizen initiative.

Missouri is one of only ten states where the legislature can turn around and modify or even complete gut a voter initiative. And, as we saw in the recent legislative session, far too many of our elected officials are more interested in placating special interests than in actually implementing the will of the people.

The Secretary of State has vetted the language of the bill, which means the next step is gathering signatures. If you’re interested in helping, you can volunteer at the Voter Protection Alliance web site.

Categories
Critters

Senator Munzlinger responds about Rabbit Ridge

A fellow Missourian, Taunia Adams, emailed Senator Munzlinger, the state Senator for the Rabbit Ridge kennel district, about the kennel. Following in his response to her:

You are right in assuming that I do not advocate for animal cruelty. I read this blog post and did some investigating. I spoke with the Director’s office at the Department of Agriculture (MDA) and they performed an on-site investigation on May 12 at the Rabbit Ridge Kennel. According to the MDA, there was one very minor violation. Other than that, everything was in order. The blog post cites previous USDA inspections. I’m sure you’re aware that the Federal government is out of my jurisdiction and I’m not an expert on their inspection standards or punitive policies.

I’ve heard from several Missouri residents in response to this blog post, including the veterinarian on record for Rabbit Ridge. He corroborated the results of the MDA’s investigation. I find it disconcerting that some people are willing to ruin the reputation of a licensed breeder in good standing based on personal agendas and rumors.

Also, I must disagree with you regarding my support of Senate Bill 161. Proposition B, as passed by the voters, did nothing to address the problem of unlicensed breeders in our state and provided no funding to allow the MDA to step up inspections and enforcement. The compromise language allows good, law-abiding breeders to remain in business, while giving the Department the tools they need to increase enforcement.

Sincerely,

Senator Brian Munzlinger
District 18
State Capitol – Room 426
(573) 751.7985
www.senate.mo.gov/munzlinger

As I noted earlier, the veterinarian for Rabbit Ridge, Jim Foster, posted a now-pulled Facebook entry that he had been at the breeder with the MDA for the inspection that Senator Munzlinger noted. Now, the veterinarian may have been at the breeder by coincidence, or he and/or the breeder may have been notified by the MDA prior to the inspection that the inspector was going to be at the kennel that day—hard to say.
screen shot of vet discussing breeder visit

We have no idea what the “minor violation” is, since the good Senator didn’t identify it. I’m assuming it could be a repeat of the last MDA violation: a build up of dirt, grime, and cobwebs in the kennel buildings.

We have a breeder who has racked up hundreds, maybe even thousands, of serious violations over the years, suddenly having no violations. And we have an MDA inspection report that differs from the last two USDA inspections. So where is the truth in all of this?

Thanks to the amendment stuck into the bill on blasting in last year’s legislature, no one from any animal welfare organization can accompany an MDA inspector to verify the accuracy of the department’s reporting. No, not even a representative from MAAL or the Humane Society of Missouri (HSMO), both of whom worked with Governor Nixon and the MDA to toss out Proposition B in favor of the “compromise” SB 161. And frankly, after three failed audits, and the department’s actions regarding the Proposition B vote, I don’t have a lot of faith in the MDA.

My next action is to contact the USDA for any and all photos that it’s inspectors have taken of Rabbit Ridge. Because of the failures in the March and April inspections, the USDA should also be inspecting the breeder in the next couple of months, so will see how that inspection goes.

Well, unless I’m taken away by the FBI for being a terrorist because of my activity, that is.

another fb screenshot where I'm accused of terrorism

Categories
Critters

HSUS and the local shelters file suit

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

HSUS joined with the Dogwood Animal Shelter in Osage and Stray Rescue in St. Louis to file a lawsuit to block new fees for shelters.

When the Animal Care Facilities Act was passed in the early 1990s, municipal pounds and shelters were exempt from paying fees. The reason why should be obvious: these organizations don’t profit for every animal they process. In fact, the opposite occurs, as each organization has to expend money for processing the animal—sometimes a significant amount of money if the dog or cat is from a rescue and is in bad shape. In addition, unlike commercial breeders, these organizations also provide a service to the community by helping to remove unwanted dogs and cats from the streets, including the too many dogs dumped into the animal rescue infrastructure by callous and uncaring large scale dog breeders.

In 2010, this changed. In 2010, a simple little bill called SB 795 moved from the Senate to the House. This bill was related to blasting safety—something everyone can get behind. However, by the time the House was done with the bill, amendments and alterations had been tacked on to the bill to handle transportation of wild boar, the sale of eggs, the establishment of a Large Carnivore Fund, something to do with electric portfolios, a fee for selling booze, registration for pesticides, and amendments to the Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA).

Among the ACFA amendments is the following, which specifically removes the fee exemption for animal shelters:

273.327. No person shall operate an animal shelter, pound or dog pound, boarding kennel, commercial kennel, contract kennel, pet shop, or exhibition facility, other than a limited show or exhibit, or act as a dealer or commercial breeder, unless [he] such person has obtained a license for such operations from the director. An applicant shall obtain a separate license for each separate physical facility subject to sections 273.325 to 273.357 which is operated by the applicant. Any person exempt from the licensing requirements of sections 273.325 to 273.357 may voluntarily apply for a license. Application for such license shall be made in the manner provided by the director. The license shall expire annually unless revoked. As provided by rules to be promulgated by the director, the license fee shall range from one hundred to five hundred dollars per year. Pounds[,] or dog pounds [and animal shelters] shall be exempt from payment of such fee. License fees shall be levied for each license issued or renewed on or after January 1, 1993.

The square brackets surround existing ACFA text which is removed via this new legislation.

Why remove the exemption for shelters and rescues? Spite, pure and simple. This is proved out by another amendment to the Act, which added an additional section to the law:

The department of agriculture shall not retain, contract with, or otherwise utilize the services of the personnel of any nonprofit organization for the purpose of inspection or licensing of any animal shelter, pound, or dog pound, boarding kennel, commercial kennel, contract kennel, commercial breeder, hobby or show breeder, or pet shop under sections 273.325 to 273.357.

It would be difficult for puppy mills to retain their dirty little secrets if folks from organizations such as Stray Rescue or HSMO were allowed to tag along with inspectors, even if the organization’s person provides a needed service, such as veterinarian expertise.

HSUS, in conjunction with the Dogwood Animal Shelter and Stray Rescue are now challenging the increased licensing fee provision because it violates the state Constitution, specifically the Limitation of scope of bill:

Section 23. No bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except bills enacted under the third exception in section 37 of this article and general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts for which moneys are appropriated.

The bill is a clear violation of the Missouri Constitution. The thing is an awful mess of totally unrelated provisions, rules, replacements seemingly shotgunned into the original bill, which is now some grab bag of special interests and personal agenda items. The original bill text about blasting safety still remains—crammed somewhere between pesticides and large carnivores.

The Missouri General Assembly should be ashamed of putting out such a worthless piece of crap. What made it worse, though, was to add an alteration specifically to punish non-profit organizations.

All I can say is the people in Missouri can take no pride in their lawmakers.