Animal Protection Minnesota

“The mass breeder’s bottom line is low overhead and high return. So bulk food purchases are often comprised of sweepings from the food manufacturer’s floor. Dogs are so nutrition deprived, their teeth rot as young as one or two years of age. Sometimes their jaws dissolve. Others lose their front teeth from gnawing on the metal bars that contain them.

There are approximately 5,000 mill-style outfits nationwide. Cruelty investigators have uncovered parasite-infested dogs with oozing eyes, ear infections, and fur so matted it forms a puppy’s skin into a blanket of red scabs. Dogs in congested quarters easily spread worms, upper respiratory infections, coccidia, giardia, and deadly parvovirus and distemper.

Dogs are found with gangrenous skin where collars became embedded in flesh. Others are balding, blind, emaciated. Some long-term mill dogs have been debarked by shoving a steel rod down their throats to mutilate vocal cords.”

The above is an excerpt from Born in a Missouri Puppy Mill, written by Brenda Shoss, Kinship Circle, in 2004, describing the condition of puppy mills in the United States. Missouri tops the list for puppy mills and dog production.

Minnesota has no state laws that allow it to license, inspect or regulate dog and cat breeders

Search the Internet or talk with anyone from the animal community and you will find hundreds of horror stories about animal neglect and suffering at the hands of unscrupulous dog and cat breeders, dealers, auctioneers and brokers.

Minnesota humane agents and many animal rescuers, veterinarians, animal shelters and law enforcement have all witnessed atrocities, and are trying to handle the crisis. The State of Minnesota, however, has no State law giving it the authority to license and regulate the dog and cat breeding industry; therefore, the State cannot inspect breeding facilities, enforce humane standards, or impose penalties on inhumane breeders.

USDA-licensed breeders in Minnesota are inspected by the USDA; however, inspection reports show enforcement of violations are minimal and inadequate. With 2.5 inspectors for Minnesota, the office is understaffed and underfunded. Reports also show commercial breeders are allowed to continue operating, even if violations pile up. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) allows for civil penalties to be imposed of up to $2,750 per violation; these penalties are often not imposed or deeply discounted, resulting in fewer AWA revenues for enforcement efforts and an attitude among breeders that violations are merely “a cost of doing business.” (per federal Audit Report)

2005 Audit Report shows a broken system

The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal Care Program is responsible for inspecting all facilities covered under the Animal Welfare Act, which includes USDA-licensed dog and cat breeders. In 2005, an Audit Report of the APHIS Animal Care Program Inspection and Enforcement Activities, conducted by the Assistant Inspector General for Audit, found the following (among other points):

“Due to a lack of clear National guidance, Animal Care’s (AC) Eastern Region is not aggressively pursuing enforcement actions against violators of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). We found that regional management significantly reduced its referrals of suspected violators to IES from an average of 209 cases in fiscal years (FYs) 2002-2003 to 82 cases in FY 2004. During this same period, regional management declined to take action against 126 of 475 violators that had been referred to IES. In contrast, the Western Region declined action against 18 of 439 violators. We found cases where the Eastern Region declined to take enforcement action against violators who compromised public safety or animal health.…As a result, the two regions are inconsistent in their treatment of violators; the percentage of repeat violators (those with 3 or more consecutive years with violations) is twice as high in the Eastern Region than in the Western Region. Eastern Region inspectors believe the lack of enforcement action undermines their credibility and authority to enforce the AWA.
“AC’s Licensing and Registration Information System (LARIS) does not effectively track violations and prioritize inspection activities.
The LARIS database records AC inspections and archives violation histories for all breeders, exhibitors, research facilities, and others. We determined that the system generates unreliable and inaccurate information, limiting its usefulness to AC inspectors and supervisors.”
“FMD and IES did not follow the law and internal control procedures in their processing and collection of penalties.
APHIS’ Financial Management Division (FMD) did not transfer 81 of 121 delinquent AC receivables totaling $398,354 to the U.S. Department of Treasury for collection as required by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. In addition, IES did not comply with APHIS’ internal cash controls to secure the collection of fines.”

The State of Minnesota falls under the administration of the Eastern Region office.

Supporting links

"));