Gov Signs Ohio Breeder Bill

Update Dec. 12, 2012: Ohio Gov. John Kasich signed Sub. S.B. 130 into law on Deceomber 11, 2012.

Update November 30, 2012: The Ohio Senate Rules & Reference Committee and now the full Senate have approved Sub. S.B. 130. The bill has been sent to Ohio Gov. John Kasich for his signature.

Animal welfare advocates including the Ohio Coalition to Ban Dog Auctions, have asked the governor to “amend” the measure by removing the registration and inspection provisions for animal welfare rescues. Others have called on Gov. Kasich to veto a concededly weak bill. For more on this bill, read Animal Law Coalition’s reports below.

Update November 26, 2012: The Ohio Senate Rules & Reference Committee is scheduled to vote TOMORROW, Tuesday, Nov. 27 at 1:30 p.m. EST on the substitute Sub. S.B. 130 that was approved by the state House of Representatives last week. The House passed a different version of S.B. 130 than was originally approved by the Senate. The Senate will vote tomorrow on whether to approve those changes.

For more on the original version passed by the Senate and the changes made in the House version, read Animal Law Coalition’s reports below.

The Ohio Coalition to Ban Dog Auctions is calling on citizens to contact committee members and urge them at least to remove provisions regulating animal rescues.  The bill requires registration of all animal rescues including foster homes but does not apply to any breeders other than high volume breeders and dog retailers; hobby and show breeders, sporting or hunting dog breeders, pet stores and small “backyard” breeders would not be subject to any regulation under the bill. If you live in Ohio, go to www.BanOhioDogAuctions.com for information about how you can help.

Update November 15, 2012: Following a hearing on Tuesday, November 13 2012, the Ohio House of Representatives Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee approved the substitute Sub. S.B. 130, a bill to regulate all dog rescues and some high volume dog breeders. The full House then passed the measure by a vote of 89-5. The version passed by the House contained a couple of changes, most notably that the governor, not the Department of Agriculture director, will appoint advisory board members.

For more on Substitute Sub. 130, read Animal Law Coalition’s report below. The measure now goes back to the Ohio Senate for approval of changes in the bill made in the House version. The Ohio Senate earlier approved Sub. 130. For more on the Senate version, read Animal Law Coalition reports below.

Update November 10, 2012: Ohio state Rep. Dave Hall has announced a hearing and vote set Tuesday, November 13, 2012 on a revised puppy mill bill in the Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee he chairs.

The bill, S.B. 130, passed the Senate (see Animal Law Coalition report below) earlier this year. Revised versions of the bill have been under consideration by the Ohio House of Representatives. The latest proposed version to be considered at Tuesday’s committee hearing is not much different than that proposed in September, 2012, Sub. Substitute S.B. 130 (see Animal Law Coalition report below).

This version compared to the September version would regulate fewer breeders and require animal rescues to register with the state. There would be no charge for the registration and the director of agriculture would then maintain a database of registered animal rescues. Animal rescues could be inspected if the director receives a complaint but only as to registration compliance.

The latest version changes the definition of “high volume breeder” to limit breeders regulated to those that keep unspayed dogs that produce 9 litters of puppies each year and “for a fee or other consideration, sell” 60 or more adult dogs or puppies annually.  Again, it could be very difficult for the Dept. of Agriculture to determine the numbers of litters produced and now also try to ascertain whether the breeders has sold 60 dogs in a particular year as well.

The Dept. would under this version be required to issue standards of care relating to housing, nutrition, exercise, grooming, biosecurity and disease control, waste management, whelping and “[a]ny other general standard of care”.  In issuing such rules the Dept. is to consider best management practices, biosecurity, prevention of diseased, morbidity and mortality data, generally accepted veterinary medical standards and ethical standards of the American Veterinary Medical Association, USDA standards under the Animal Welfare Act.  The only standard of care that the director would be required to adopt would be proof of a “veterinary-client-patient relationship”. This version eliminates the odd provision no such relationship is required to be established until just prior to the sale of a dog. But there would still be no statutory requirement as to the veterinary care that is to be provided to each dog.

The latest version would increase the civil penalties that could be imposed to a maximum of $100, up from $25. The Dept. could also as in the earlier version set the amount of penalties related to licensing violations.

There is under this version some limit on the Dept.’s discretion to issue licenses to high volume breeders or dog retailers. Applications for such licenses would be required to be denied if there has previously been a violation of this law or the rules to be issued by the Dept. and as a result there is a material threat to the health or welfare of a dog. Whatever that means. Applications would also be required to be denied if there has been a conviction or guilty plea to certain animal cruelty or animal fighting charges in the past 20 years.

This version would also create an advisory board called the Commercial Dog Breeding Advisory Board made up of the state veterinarian and 6 members appointed by the director: one represening a humane society, one who is a county dog warden, one who is a veterinarian, one representing animal rescues, one who is a breeder and one representing the public.

This bill, sub Substitute S.B. 130, contains some improvements over the September version. But the bill continues to lack real enforcement mechanisms and is unlikely to provide effective regulation to protect the dogs caught up in Ohio’s prolific dog breeding industry. See Animal Law Coalition’s report below for the concerns raised about this bill that have not been addressed in this latest version.

Update Sept. 7, 2012:  Ohio S.B. 130 which began as an effort to try to regulate some
dog breeders and all animal rescues, appears set to be revised yet again. The
latest proposal, Substitute S.B. 130, would
not regulate rescues at all and instead would create a new law that would leave
to the state Department of Agriculture the regulation of “high volume breeders”.
The bill defines “high volume breeders” as those breeders who keep unspayed
dogs that produce at least 9 litters “in any given calendar year” for a “fee or
other consideration”.   It could be difficult for the department to determine whether a breeder has produced 9 litters; it could be difficult to track sales, for example. It would be easy for many breeders to escape regulation under this definition.

The bill would also leave regulation of “dog retailers” to
the Department as well. A “dog retailer” is basically a broker, someone who
buys or sells dogs at wholesale for resale to another or who sells or gives one
or more dogs each year to a pet store.  A
dog retailer, however, does not include pet stores.

Of concern is that animal shelters are so broadly defined that it could be difficult for the Department to determine whether an animal shelter is actually a dog retailer.

The bill contains no standards of care for dogs kept or
transported by breeders or retailers. The bill does not even require the
Department of Agriculture to issue standards of care!

The Department is only required to issue regulations for
high volume breeders and dog retailers that relate to: (1)  licenses which can be for 1, 3 or 5 years; (2)
limited background checks, (3) record keeping, (4) insurance with specified
limits depending on the number of dogs, (5) procedures for inspections, (6)
identification of breeders, retailers and prior owners that is to be provided
to consumers,  or alternatively, health
certificates to be provided to purchasers, and (7) inclusion of vendor numbers
on ads for the sale of a dog.

That’s it.  The only
requirement that resembles a standard of care for dogs is the provision that
the breeder or dog retailer must present “[p]roof” of a relationship with a
veterinarian for “each dog prior to the dog’s being sold at wholesale or
retail”.  It is not clear what is meant
by “[p]roof”.  And, apparently the dogs
kept for breeding are not required to have a vet, at least until just before
they are sold. If they are sold. Maybe after they have been used for breeding
over and over and can no longer produce puppies, these dogs will just be dumped
at a shelter or killed.  But they could
be sold, for example, at one of Ohio’s notorious dog auctions which remain
legal under this bill. Under this bill, these dogs would not be required to
have any veterinary care until prior to sale.

The Department is not even required to inspect a breeder or
dog retailer prior to issuing a license. Instead, the Department is free to
rely on the word of the breeder or retailer as to the number of dogs housed and
the number of litters to be produced.

A background check is limited to determining whether the
breeder or retailer has previously committed a violation of this new chapter that
“materially threaten[ed] the health or welfare of a dog” or in the past 20
years was convicted of certain animal cruelty or animal fighting laws.  Regardless, the Department is free to issue
licenses to breeders or retailers even if they have a record of such violations
or convictions! And no other criminal background, however violent, or even action
taken against the breeder or retailer for animal neglect or abuse that did not
result in a conviction, is sufficient to deny a license.

There is no authority to revoke or suspend a license unless
a violation of a rule “materially threatens the health or welfare of a dog”. It
is not clear what that means or how it would be determined. Even if this
determination is made and an animal is seized or suffering terribly, injured,
even killed, there is no requirement that the Department revoke or suspend the
breeder’s or retailer’s license.

In effect, the Department has virtually unfettered
discretion to determine whether to deny, suspend, or revoke a license.

The licensing fees are meager.  License fees range from $150 for breeders that
sell between 9-15 litters annually to $750 for those selling more than 45
litters annually.  It is not clear how
the department will determine how many litters a breeder sells other than by
simply taking the word of the breeder.
Sales can be very difficult to track. The licensing fee for dog
retailers is set at $500 annually.

The civil penalties or fines are to be set by the department
for violations of the licensing provisions. Otherwise, the civil penalty or
fine for any other violation is capped at $25.00 per violation.  Each day the breeder or retailer is in
violation is a separate violation.  But
still.  It’s hardly a deterrent.

It
is likely that such low fines and lack of funding as well as limited discretion
for enforcement will be the real deterrent – to enforcement by the department.
Even issuing a citation means allowing the breeder or retailer the opportunity
to correct the violation.  Failing that,
the breeder or retailer must then be provided notice and a hearing. A penalty
can be assessed after a hearing, but the breeder or retailer can appeal
that!  Why would the department bother
for $25.00?

There
are other limits on enforcement. There are no criminal penalties. The department
can suspend or revoke a license only if the violation “materially threatens the
health and welfare of a dog”. Again, an uncertain and vague burden with notice
and hearing requirements; rights to a hearing and appeal would allow a breeder
or retailer in violation to continue operating until a final ruling could be
obtained. The only way for the Department to stop a breeder or retailer in the
meantime is to ask the attorney general to pursue an injunction.

Dogs
can be seized or impounded only if they are kept “in a manner that materially
violates”‘ this particular chapter or the rules issued by the Department,
whatever that means. Dogs cannot be seized or impounded by the Department if
they are kept in violation of other chapters, such as the animal cruelty or
animal fighting laws.

The
high volume breeders and dog retailers are required to be inspected once
annually though the Department can contract with the local vet to conduct the
inspection, even the breeder’s or retailer’s own vet.  Inspections are only otherwise required if
the department receives a report that a breeder or retailer is operating
without a license.

The
Department is authorized but not required to inspect upon receiving a complaint
or request of a “member of the public, a public official, or an animal shelter
for dogs”.

There
are no standards for inspections or reports; it is not clear what inspectors
are supposed to be looking for.

Dog
wardens and humane agents are required to report to the Department any
violations of this chapter or the Department’s rules governing high volume
breeders or dog retailers.

There
is no requirement, however, that the department report violations of the
cruelty or animal fighting laws to the wardens, humane agents or local
prosecutors.

No appropriations accompany the bill. There is no funding
for administrators or inspectors, let alone their training. But then, nothing
under this bill requires the department to be accountable in any way for
carrying out its duties, such as they are, under this bill. Whether this bill
will improve the lives of dogs even a little is unclear and depends solely on
the commitment of the Department of Agriculture. It speaks volumes that Ohio
state Rep. Dave Hall, Chair of the  Ohio
House of Representatives Agriculture Committee and whose district includes
Holmes County, home to hundreds of puppy mills, described this as a bill he
could support.

For more on the version of S.B. 130 now on file, read Animal Law Coalition’s reports below. 

Update June 5, 2012:  After passing the Ohio senate earlier this year (See Animal Law Coalition report below), S.B. 130 has been under consideration by the state House of  Representatives. Members of the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee have been evaluating the bill.

According to Mary O’Connor Shaver, founder Coalition to Ban Ohio Dog Auctions, “Per Chairman Rep. David Hall (R-97; district includes Holmes county, ground zero for puppy mill breeding in Ohio), one major point of discussion is funding for the proposed bill, which had language relating to license and litter registration fees STRIPPED in the Senate Agriculture, Environment & Natural Resources Committee – this was a MAJOR concession hard fought and won by Ohio’s ‘puppy mill’ breeders!

“According to Chairman Hall, if a funding mechanism is not identified, the measure could put a significant strain on the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s (ODA) budget to cover operating expenses.

“It is estimated that without reinstatement of language which requires ‘puppy mill’ breeders to pay license and litter registration fees, SB 130 (as passed by the Senate) could cost Ohio taxpayers up to $3 million a year!”

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Click here to find your Ohio state House Representative asking for his/her NO vote on SB 130 – > http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/ For talking points, read Animal Law Coalition’s analysis of the bill in our earlier reports below.

Update February 1, 2012: After more than six years of wrangling over the best way to regulate Ohio’s growing number of puppy mills, the Senate Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources Committee approved a version of S.B. 130 that is much different from the last version introduced in 2011.  And, the full Senate has also unanimously approved the new version.

Under the current version of S.B. 130 animal rescues must still obtain a license and provide information to the state Department of Agriculture about their foster homes, but they are no longer the target of extensive regulation as under earlier incarnations of the bill. Rescues can be inspected for compliance if there is a complaint, and inspectors can impound any dogs whose health and safety are believed to be in imminent danger. The Department of Agriculture will maintain a database of licensed animal rescues in the state.

All adoption fees charged by rescues are, however, subject to approval by the Department. This increased regulation could mean a burdensome approval process for legitimate rescues. Yet, the prices and fees charged by high volume breeders do not appear to be subject to scrutiny.

The clear target of this latest version of S.B. 130 are “high volume breeders” and “dog retailers”. A “high volume breeder” is “an establishment” that keeps breeding dogs that produce a minimum of 9 litters of puppies each year and sells 60 or more dogs each year. Litters are to be registered. But it is not clear how inspectors will determine the number of litters and sales. “High volume” breeders could escape regulation under this bill because of the difficulty inspectors who will only inspect once every 2 years may have in determining a breeder’s number of litters and dogs sold. A similar definition in New York, for example, has left inspectors there frustrated in their efforts to identify which breeders they are supposed to regulate and likely allows breeders to escape regulation.

A “dog retailer” is one who buy, sells or offers to sell dogs at wholesale for resale or who sells or gives at least one dog each year to pet stores.  Most dogs or puppies sold by pet stores come from puppy mills.

Medical kennels or veterinary hospitals, research kennels and public shelters are exempt from regulation under this bill.  Commercial and other dog breeders that are not “high volume” would still be required to obtain kennel licenses under current Ohio law and comply with the state’s animal cruelty laws but are not regulated by this bill.  There is nothing in the bill that would prevent so called high volume breeders from having family members, for example, obtain separate licenses so that it appears there are several smaller operations not subject to regulation. It is also curious as to why every animal rescue must obtain a license and be subject to inspection, but any dog breeder whose dogs produce less than 9 litters annually or who sell less than 60 dogs each year are left unregulated. That’s a lot of unregulated backyard breeders.

Under the bill approved by the Senate, a Commercial Dog Breeding Oversight Board would be established within the Department of Agriculture.  As with the Kennel Control Authority proposed under earlier versions of the bill, the Board would hava a significant percentage – 43% – of members associated with breeding or those that profit from breeding.  The director of the Department of Agiriculture with consent of the Senate would be required to appoint 6 members to the Board: one who is from a county humane society, one who represents animal rescue organizations, one who is a veterinarian, one who is a county dog warden, one who is a representative of a professional dog breeding association and one member of the public. The state veterinarian would also serve on the Board. The Board would be tasked with coming up with standards of care for the dogs and a system for inspectors to rate high volume breeders which would be inspected by the Department at least once every 2 years. The Board would also provide input and evaluation of the Department’s rules including whether the scheme actually prevents animal cruelty.

Opponents of this version of S.B. 130 point out that dogs will be regulated by the Department of Agriculture as they are “livestock” instead of companion animals. Earlier versions of the bill would have placed regulation over puppy mills under a new agency called the Kennel Control Authority, funded by fees and penalties imposed on the breeders. Under that concept, the Agency would have depended on the continued existence of the mills for its funding. There would really have been little or no incentive to shut down puppy mills. Under this latest version of S.B. 130, that is not the case. Also, it is typical for a state department of agriculture to regulate dog breeders and animal shelters. And, Ohio law makes clear that dogs have more protections as “companion animals”. The problem with relying on the department, as with any centralized regulatory agency, is that it is likely to be aligned with those it is supposed to regulate. It would be much more effective if local wardens, humane agents and other local officials were provided with funding to help enforce the current animal cruelty laws and the standards of care issued by the Board for high volume breeders. More eyes on the dogs. Under this bill, the department is authorized to enter into agreements for local enforcement but is not required to do so. Dog wardens and humane agents are required to report any violations they see in performing their other duties and have authority to examine records required to be maintained under this bill. It’s not clear, though, that without enforcement authority, dog wardens or humane agents would be in a position to observe violations.

The new version of S.B. 130 fails to prohibit dog auctions or raffles. Nor does it stop anyone from bringing dogs into the state for sale at auctions or raffles. This despite the fact that Tuscarawas and Holmes counties serve as major distribution channels for buyers and sellers of dogs from 15 states, many of whom have long standing, repeated violations of the Animal Welfare Act and/or have been convicted of animal cruelty. Fortunately, a hard won ballot initiative to ban dog auctions and raffles in Ohio has been certified. The initiative now goes to the legislature for its consideration. For more ….. 

The bill, S.B. 130, dispenses with any licensing fees though there is a scheme for the director of agriculture to implement regarding applications, background checks, qualifications and insurance requirements as well as record keeping. Litters would be required to be registered. Vendor numbers assigned must be listed on any advertisement. This will help the state Taxation Commission track sales and collect sales taxes for dogs sold by breeders, something that has been difficult to do in the past.

The department’s inspectors are to be trained in “animal husbandry”, “kennel management”, “record keeping” and “first aid”. Hopefully, the training would also include enforcement of animal cruelty laws and standards of care for dogs as determined by the Board. The inspectors would rate high volume breeders during inspections and prepare reports of their inspections. They could (1) impose civil penalties for violations but only after there has been an opportunity for correction of the violation, (2) issue cease and desist orders and (3) request the attorney general obtain injunctions to enforce the requirements of the bill. Animals could be seized and impounded if the high volume breeder is in “material” violation of the law or there is imminent danger to the animals’ health and safety.

Licenses could not be suspended or revoked, though, unless “the violation materially threatens the health and welfare of the dog.”  This will make it much more difficult to shut down puppy mills.

Monies collected for enforcement would go into a high volume breeder kennel control fund.

Under the bill pet stores would be required to provide buyers of dogs with (1) record of a veterinary exam indicating the dog is free of “disease or physical deformity”, (2) information about the dog’s breeder, (3) telephone number of the department of agriculture, and (4) a money back guarantee that is valid for at least 21 days after purchase of the dog; a purchaser can collect on the guarantee by submitting a veterinarian’s statement that the dog was examined within 14 days of purchase and has a significant disease, illenss or injury that was in existence at the time of the purchase. No word on what happens to the dog or who pays for any veterinary bills or other damages. Even if the pet store fails to comply with these requirements, the most a purchaseer could collect is $500 for veterinary bills and attorney’s fees. The department is also supposed to enforce these requirements which are to be posted in the store.

Proponents of the bill say it is a strong bill that will for the first time impose regulations on at least the large commercial dog breeders in Ohio. Much will depend on how it is implemented and enforced. As other states such as Missouri, New York and Pennsylvania have found, Ohio is unlikely to be rid of its puppy mills without a clear definition of the breeders that are regulated, aggressive enforcement that includes more than a biennial inspection by the state, a ban on dog auctions, and clear, high standards of care such as sheltering in reasonably sized kennels instead of cages, unfettered access to exercise areas where dogs can run, regular veterinary care and the like.

The bill now goes to the state House of Representatives. For more on last year’s version of S.B. 130, read Animal Law Coalition’s report below. 

Original report August 11, 2011: Despite what proponents may say, the latest version of Ohio Senate Bill 130 is not legislation that will stop or prevent puppy mills.

Instead, it is a bill that will enable puppy mills and hurt rescues.

S.B. 130 creates a new state bureaucracy called the Kennel Control Authority to regulate “high volume breeders”, dog retailers, boarding kennels and all animal rescues and shelters.  The Board of KCA will be dominated by commercial breeders and supporters of the breeding industry.  There would be only one representative of the animal welfare community on the Board.

The proponents claim S.B. 130 is “self funded”. That means the agency’s existence, the director job it will create, inspectors and office staff, will depend on puppy mills. The funding for the new bureaucracy is to come from licensing fees and fines. The agency will have no incentive at all to shut down puppy mills or do anything that might mean a puppy mill would close or lose profits. It will be in the new bureaucracy’s interest to have more mills.

It is telling that S.B. 130 also fails to ban or even restrict at all the Ohio dog auctions that serve as major distribution channels for puppy mills in 15 states. Many of these mill operators operate despite repeated and long standing violations of the Animal Welfare Act. For more on a ballot initiative underway in Ohio to shut down dog auctions…..  

The S.B. 130 proponents’ comparison of regulation of puppy mills by KCA to oversight for “restaurants” or “hair salons” is also telling. Restaurants and hair salons are generally positive businesses that no one would want to close. A “high volume breeder”, driven by profits, not the well being of dogs, a puppy mill, is hardly a desirable business.  And dogs are not the same as a hair cut or a sandwich, a toaster, television or any other consumer goods or services that are produced for public consumption.  They are living beings, not something to mass produce.

Licensing agencies dedicated to a particular profession or industry tend to promote and protect the businesses they oversee. The people that get hurt by a bad hair cut or medical malpractice, for example, have other recourse besides complaints to a licensing agency. Dogs don’t. And they should not have to rely on a pro- breeder agency to protect them.

KCA would require substantial startup funding from the state; it is not free to create a new state bureaucracy.  Yet, proponents have refused to acknowledge that an appropriation will be required to fund offices, salaries and benefits for inspectors and office staff; equipment and the like for a new bureaucracy at a time when the recession has left the state as well as taxpayers strapped for funds.

S.B. 130 proponents claim a central bureaucracy to enable high volume dog breeders is better than relying on local or even cross-county or existing state enforcement agencies to inspect, penalize and shut down breeders in violation of the law. Only if the goal is to ensure the continuation of puppy mills.  The interest here should not be the breeders or even the convenience of local dog wardens. It is not acceptable to tell taxpayers they must fund a new state agency that will only enable high volume puppy mills because local law enforcement may not want “more work”.  The dog wardens are already supposed to be enforcing dog kennel licensing requirements. The bill should instead preserve local control, eliminate the necessity of a central bureaucracy and allow local law enforcement including dog wardens, humane agents, health officials as well as existing state agencies to conduct inspections, issue cease and desist orders and refer violations for imposition of civil or criminal penalties. Law enforcement, dog wardens and humane agents in other counties could be called on to help. Fees and penalties would fund local enforcement, not a new bureaucracy dedicated to the promotion and preservation of high volume breeders.

A troubling aspect of S.B. 130 is that is fails to put in place reporting and disclosure mechanisms that will allow the Ohio State Tax Commission to track commercial breeders and collect sales taxes. One puppy mill operator testified in the legislature last year that commercial dog breeders bring in $9 million per year to Holmes County alone. The state and local governments did not receive tax revenue from those sales of dogs. (Go to http://www.holmescountyexposed.com/ for more information.) That is because many of these commercial breeding operations are not licensed or registered; the county as well as the state is losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in sales tax revenues.  The state has estimated losses of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in sales tax not collected from dog breeders.

Also, S.B. 130 would leave thousands of puppy mills and backyard breeders unregulated in Ohio.

Curiously, S.B. 130 gives carte blanche authority to the KCA to regulate rescues. The bill states KCA will issue “[r]equirements and procedures governing animal rescues for dogs, including the licensing and inspection of and record keeping by animal rescues for dogs, in addition to the requirements and procedures established in this chapter“. Yet, the KCA Board would only have one representative from an animal welfare organization such as a spca or humane society. An agency run by breeders and the cottage industries they feed would be regulating rescues in Ohio.

Why else S.B. 130 doesn’t work for Ohio:

S.B. 130

Regulates only “high volume” breeders, dog retailers, boarding kennels but all rescues*

No limits on the number of breeding dogs kept by the breeder or the number of times a dog can be bred in her lifetime. A dog must be examined by a veterinarian at least once in the 12 month period prior to breeding.

Requires a license issued by KCA

Inspections would be conducted by the KCA only once every 2 years

Licensing, inspections and imposition of citations and  civil penalties for high volume breeders and dog retailers left largely to the discretion of the KCA; there is no requirement to deny anyone a license or suspend or revoke a license. The civil fine for a violations except failure to obtain a license  would be $25.

No prohibition on dog auctions or raffles or sales of dogs along roads or highways or on other public property.  The plan is to hope dog auctions go away some day.

Scary provisions for all Ohio rescues: KCA which is made up of breeders and affiliated industry representatives would have broad authority to regulate rescues

No socialization of dogs required except interaction with other dogs

Size of enclosures: 3 dogs could be held in a cage. 3 dogs less than 20 lbs each could be crammed into cages 4′ by 4′. 3 dogs weighing 20-50 lbs could be held in a cage that is 4′ x 6′. 3 dogs over 51 lbs could be held in a cage that is 4′ by 8′. Barely enough room to move let alone stretch out.

Exercise: The exercise enclosures may or may not be attached. An attached exercise area for dogs less than 20 lbs could be only 4′ x 8′ for 3 dogs. 3 dogs weighing 20-50 lbs would share a slightly bigger area for exercise, 4′ x 12′.  3 51 plus lbs dogs would be given a 4′ x 16′ area for exercise. If the exercise areas are unattached, those sizes become 10′ x 10′ , 20′ x 20′, and 40′ x 40′ respectively for 3 dogs.  **

Wire flooring: Cages can have wire flooring with a plastic or rubber coating on up to 50% of the floor; the remaining 50% can also be wire with a plastic or rubber coating if covered by bedding.

Cages can be stacked if there is an impervious barrier between the stacks

It is not clear dogs must have an indoor enclosure at all. The bill says the dogs can be kept in a dog house with straw or somehow be given “shelter from the elements”. There would be “shade” required during the summer months.  Only indoor temperatures are regulated, to be kept between 50 and 90 degrees

Would allow dogs to be devocalized and their tails docked and ears cropped for any reason if performed by a veterinarians

Allows surgical births to be performed without anesthesia or a licensed veterinarian

No fire safety or evacuation plan required

No restrictions on chaining dogs

Dogs could be bred, raised, sold, purchased, traded, bartered, auctioned, distributed,  transported, delivered or possessed for human consumption

Dogs could be bred and used as rentals

No record keeping requirements

 

*Actually, it is far from clear the KCA would really be able to identify even “high volume breeders”. The bill awkwardly defines a “high volume breeder” to mean a breeder whose dogs produce at least nine litters of puppies and who sells at least 60 adult dogs or puppies a year.  How will KCA know how many dogs a breeder sells? Go through the newspaper or online ads and count the dogs offered for sale by a breeder? New York’s inspectors are hampered by a similar definition. They will tell you it is time consuming and often impossible to determine whether a breeder has sold the requisite number of dogs and thus should be regulated.

** It is not clear how dogs would be assured exercise under S.B. 130 if the small runs required are not attached to the enclosures where they are living.