Breeding or Puppy Mills

With such a large number of animals being housed and sold at retail pet stores, many welfare issues exist, including the availability of veterinary care, food and water, proper housing, and proper sanitation. This paper examines the laws pertaining to the welfare of animals in retail pet stores at the federal and state level and comments on the welfare issues that still need to be addressed.

An owner of a greyhound kennel was suspected of giving her dogs illegal steroids because an informant told the government agency this was happening. The particular steroid used was impossible to detect using urine samples, so the government agency, without a warrant, installed covert video cameras in the kennel and that way determined that the owner was injecting her dogs. The owner claimed this violated her Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights, and the court agreed; however, the agency actors were not liable because the state of the law on this issue was not clear and it was reasonable for them to think they could legally install the video surveillance system.

This Note discusses the problems with legislation and legal barriers created to battle the problems puppy mills pose to dogs bred in the United States. It then considers the applicability of legislation aimed at dealing with puppy mills at the retail level as a possible cure to the inadequacies of American regulation. This Note discusses the need for uniform regulation that goes to the heart of what sustains puppy mills, the supply and demand created by retail in the pet industry, using the model of legislation introduced in Australia, the NSW Animals (Regulation of Sale) Bill.

A dog kennel operator acquired 30 dogs while under a revised notice to cease and desist operating a kennel and from buying dogs. The Commonwealth Court affirmed fines imposed by the Department of Agriculture, holding that the fines for violation of the dog law were not excessive or unreasonable; that fines for failure to comply with conditions of the revised notice were not unconstitutionally excessive or unreasonable; and that enforcement of orders by Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement pending appeal were not staid by the doctrine of equitable estoppel.