The New Business Model For Selling Dogs

The article below appeared in the July 12, 2013 issue of DOG NEWS. It is reprinted here by permission.

One reader wrote to me to make sure it was clear that the Idaho shelter referred to was not actually in Boise. It is simply in the Boise area. The last I checked, a couple of days ago, the re-worded ad mentioned here is still on Craigslist but it may have been removed by now.

Also, San Diego voted to put in place their ban on pet stores, though there seems to be some hope that this issue can be revisited in the future. Some people seem to be excited that there are some exemptions but I do not share their enthusiasm.

Add Reno, Nevada to the list of cities that is trying to ban pet stores while offering homeless dogs and cats for sale in pet stores instead.

The New Business Model For Selling Dogs

Carlotta Cooper

As purebred dog breeders most of us are familiar with the codes of ethics for our parent breed clubs or our kennel clubs. Those codes typically spell out how we should care for our dogs and state something to the effect that we are supposed to put the welfare of the dogs and the breed above personal gain. I believe most purebred dog breeders take these goals seriously. That doesn't mean that it's unethical to recoup your costs on a litter or that people who breed dogs full-time and do it well are doing anything wrong. There is no particular virtue in losing money on a hobby if you can do things better.

But hobby breeding and even breeding purebred dogs for profit are the old business models when it comes to pets. Thanks to some of our more creative animal shelters and local governments, there is now a new business model for selling dogs as pets.

Consider, for example, the shelter in Boise, Idaho, that wants to pay $25 per puppy to anyone who will sell them. As stated in their ad on Craigslist, the shelter intends to spay and neuter the puppies and then sell them at the shelter for “adoption.” The shelter thinks this will cut down on pet overpopulation. It's hard to see how. The shelter would be acting as a broker for puppies and encouraging irresponsible breeding to meet their demand for “rescue” dogs. After an outcry from breeders, the ad was removed though it has reappeared, more carefully worded.

Then there's the situation with the pet shop in the Freehold Raceway Mall in New Jersey. The lease of the pet shop was not extended – because they sold dogs. That didn't stop the Monmouth County SPCA from taking over the shop. They now use the space to – sell dogs. The dogs come from other shelters as well as from Puerto Rico. It also functions as a pet store and they sell leashes, beds, toys, pet clothing, and so on. They have a full line of pet products from popular brands. Just don't expect to find any registered dogs there.

Many people have seen this trend coming for several years as animal control and legislation have made it harder to breed purebred dogs while at the same time encouraging people to get their dogs from shelters. Shelters have literally become pet stores today where people are supposed to go to buy their dogs and accessories. A visit to PetCo or PetSmart can often give you the same insight as these companies are supporters of HSUS. They often welcome shelter dog adoption events in their stores and are not friendly to dog breeders.

Approximately 34 municipalities in the U.S. have banned pet stores in their precincts. While some dog breeders might erroneously think this is a good thing, it's only a small step from banning pet stores to banning purebred dogs and hobby breeding. Local governments don't distinguish between a commercial dog breeder and a hobby breeder. They can easily ban all breeding once they set their sights on the selling of pets.

The San Diego City Council is in the process of trying to ban pet stores in their city, leaving shelters free to operate as the only source for dogs in the city. Pet stores in California are regulated by state law and hobby breeders in the state are covered by the puppy lemon law, but shelters are not regulated. Anyone who completes the IRS paperwork can become a non-profit rescue group and there is no oversight, according to Kay A. Henderson, PhD, Legislative Liaison for the Del Sur Kennel Club. More than 10,000 puppies from Mexico come into California every year. These puppies have no paperwork and they may have no vaccinations. They can be poorly bred, malnourished, and unsocialized. They are a health risk. They're brought in to be sold to meet the demand for cute puppies, partly because current legislation has made it so difficult for American breeders to breed, especially in California. These imported puppies often end up in local shelters where purebred hobby breeders are blamed for them, with talk of “pet overpopulation.” Imagine that.

If the ban on pet sales in retail stores succeeds in San Diego, this will be the kind of dog that is available to people in SoCal, with few other options unless they look elsewhere for a pet. Every new law that is made reduces options for breeding and keeping dogs.

Finally, there's the case of LA Animal Services General Manager Brenda Barnette who says shelters need puppies to increase their revenue. Barnette wants to change the policy of LA shelters which currently requires late-term spaying for pregnant bitches. Instead, Barnette, a former breeder, has recommended that pregnant bitches be taken in by fosters and allowed to whelp their puppies. She wants the puppies to be fostered and raised until they are 8 weeks old when they can be spayed/neutered and then adopted out through the shelter or one of its pet shops. Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention that Barnette also collaborated on and supported an ordinance that prohibits any pet stores from selling puppies, kittens, dogs or cats from puppy mills or local breeders and mandates that ALL dogs and cats sold in any pet store MUST be animals taken from a Los Angeles City shelter.

Ms. Barnette makes clear in her report to the Department of Animal Services that keeping the puppies to sell would be a good way to raise revenue: “Fostering puppies until they are eight weeks old, and returning them to Animal Services to be adopted out, represents additional revenue opportunities through adoptions to the public or through pet shops.”

This amounts to a monopoly for the city on the sale of dogs. Commercially-bred and home-raised puppies are not allowed to be sold in pet stores. Yet the city is seeking its own ongoing source of puppies to keep these pet stores supplies with “merchandise.”

Barnette, the former CEO of the Seattle Humane Society, is, or was, an AKC Legislative Liaison. As you might imagine, her former existence as a dog breeder and Legislative Liaison caused some concern when she was being considered for the position of LA Animal Services General Manager. In response to those concerns, Barnette told the Los Angeles Times:

“I'm a member of the Seattle Kennel Club,” she said, explaining the extent of her job as legislative liaison for the club. "Every now and then I get a press release from the AKC saying 'This is the legislation,' and I hit forward and send it to all the other members.... I have shown dogs, and you may see me at a show."

Either Barnette wasn't doing a very good job as Legislative Liaison or this raises some questions about what club LLs are doing and how effective they are.

So, what's wrong with allowing bitches to come to term and whelp their litters? I admit, I don't personally like the idea of late-term spays, even though many vets say they are perfectly safe for the bitch. But the point is, if an animal shelter is trying to reduce the number of dogs produced, it makes more sense to spay the bitch and place her in a good home instead of involving foster families, raising a litter, and then spaying/neutering the puppies – or waiting until they are older when they might or might not be altered. Especially when all of this effort is being done to make money for the shelter. Aren't shelters supposed to do what's best for the animals instead of using them to make money?

One thing is abundantly clear from all of these cases: shelters are actively seeking dogs, especially puppies, to meet the public demand. This should tell us something about “overpopulation.” What overpopulation? There are clearly plenty of people who want puppies and dogs, especially if you have what they are looking for. There are still too many unwanted dogs in some areas – too many big, black dogs; too many “pit bulls” or bully breeds people are afraid to adopt; and too many Chihuahuas now in California. But there are shelters all over the country actively seeking dogs to meet demand. And they are trying to suppress purebred dog breeders because they see us as their competition, whether the dogs are in a pet store or we sell online or simply through word of mouth.

There is a new business model and shelters are acquiring and selling dogs. These “non-profits” are turning into for-profit entities and they certainly are not always doing what's best for the animals. They aren't responsible to buyers in the same way that a pet store business is or a hobby breeder is. They offer no guarantees. They don't have to know anything about the puppy or dog's history or health clearances. Basically, shelters can act free of any regulation or oversight and wash their hands of a dog as soon as he's sold. They don't face any of the restrictions placed on breeders. And some of these shelters are running breeders out of town. Watch out for it.

Update: Proposed Chattanooga Animal Ordinance

The ordinance has been pulled from tonight's agenda and will be "edited, changed and hopefully improved" per information from one of the city council members. Thank you to everyone who contacted the city council! This was a draconian ordinance, drawn up by the animal control authority in the city, and I don't think the city council was really aware of how harmful it would be to breeders and owners.

We'll be keeping in touch with the city council as they go forward with their revisions. Many thanks to the city council members who have been receptive to hearing from us the last few days.

AKC ALERT: Chattanooga, Tennessee

Please contact the city council members listed below and tell them that this ordinance is too vague and obviously anti-pet in tone. It should not be adopted as it is currently written.

You can read the proposed new ordinance here. The section on urban chickens has already been shot down by the city council.

In case you're wondering, the old ordinance is now essentially invalid because of a lawsuit with a pet store that was raided by McKamey Animal Control. The old ordinance had no provision for an appeals process. The city had to re-write it before someone else sued them for more millions of dollars.


AKC Chattanooga, TN The ordinance would outlaw all breeding of pets in your house in the city. Read more

The Chattanooga City Council may hold a second vote on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 on a proposed animal ordinance that would redefine “kennel” under city code, require $300 annual permits and unlimited inspections of kennels, and establish problematic provisions for any person who sells or gives away a cat or dog. The vague definitions contained in this ordinance have the potential to outlaw all breeding of companion animals on residential properties in the city. The ordinance has already passed first reading.

Provisions of concern include, but are not limited to:

● “Kennel” would be defined as any building, structure or property wherein any person engages in the business of boarding, breeding, grooming, training for a fee, or hunting with a companion animal, maintaining an animal daycare, or providing any similar service for or with a companion animal. (The definition excludes those who rescue a limited number of animals per year.) Companion animals include dogs, cats, small domesticated mammals, pet rabbits, miniature and potbellied pigs, aquatic animals, amphibians, reptiles and birds. It is unclear if a person who breeds and sells a single companion animal or who accepts a fee for a stud service would be consider to be engaged in the business of breeding.

● A “dealer” would be defined as any person who engages in the business of selling, buying, brokering the sale of, or bartering animals in any manner, including through the Internet. It is unclear if a person who sell a single animal would be considered to be engaged in the business of selling animals or how this would impact a person who purchased, and later sold, an animal.

● Both “kennels” and “dealers” would be required to apply for and obtain a permit at a fee of $300 per year, comply with relevant regulations, and agree to submit to random inspections of all premises where animal are kept. Permits would be granted at discretion of the Animal Control Board.

● Under existing city code, a kennel may only be approved in certain commercially zoned areas, therefore, no residential property could be issued a kennel permit. Consequently, only commercial kennels would be able to comply with the provisions of the ordinance.

● Any dog sold, exchanged, or given away would be required to have documentation of having received vaccinations and anthelmintics against a list of specified diseases and internal parasites. No exceptions are provided for dog owners who, on the advice of a veterinarian, have been advised to decline such treatments. With the exception of state-mandate rabies vaccinations, the American Kennel Club believes that animal health care decisions should be made by an animal owner in consultation with a veterinarian and not dictated by city code.

● All dogs and cats sold in the city would be required to be microchipped and registered with The Animal Center prior to sale, and the seller would be required to provide the new owner’s personal information to the city within 48 hours of the sale.

What You Can Do:

Immediately contact city council members to express your opposition to this ordinance.
Contact your city council member and ask to be allowed to state your opposition to the ordinance at the council meeting prior to any vote.

Chattanooga City Council Meeting

Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 6:00 p.m., 1000 Lindsay Street, Chattanooga, TN 37402 (map)

Contact Information for City Council Members

Chip Henderson, Phone: (423) 425-7858, Fax: (423) 757-4857, E-mail: henderson_chip@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between henderson and chip.

Jerry Mitchell, Phone: (423) 757-5334, Fax: (423) 757-4857, E-Mail: mitchell_jerry@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between mitchell and jerry.

Ken Mitchell, Phone: (423) 757-5344, Fax: (423) 757-4857, E-Mail: smith_ken@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between smith and ken.

Larry Grohn, Phone: (423) 757-5346, Fax: (423) 757-4857, Email: grohn_larry@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between grohn and larry.

Russell Gilbert, Phone: (423) 757-5332, Fax : (423) 757-4857, Email: gilbert_r@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between gilbert and r.

Carol B. Berz, Phone: (423) 425-7852, Fax: (423) 757-4857, E-Mail: berz_c@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between berz and c.

Chris Anderson, Phone: (423) 425-7856, Fax:(423) 757-4857, E-Mail: anderson_c@chattanooga.gov, - note: there is an underscore between anderson and c.

Moses Freeman, Phone: (423) 757-5364, Fax: (423) 757-4857, E-Mail: freeman_m@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between freeman and m.

Yusef Hakeem, Phone: (423) 757-5367, Fax:(423) 757-4857, E-Mail: hakeem_y@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between hakeem and y.

For talking points: The Value of Responsible Dog Breeders

For questions or more information, please contact AKC Government Relations at (919) 816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org. 

What's With All The Dog Food Recalls?

This article isn't specifically about Tennessee but it is related to pet law, or at least pet food laws. There's a lot of confusion about what kind of laws govern pet food manufacturing and whether commercial pet foods are safe. This confusion isn't helped when we have frequent recalls. Maybe this article will help a little. It originally appeared in the June 21, 2013 issue of DOG NEWS.

What's With All The Dog Food Recalls?

Carlotta Cooper

If you buy dog food – and most people reading DOG NEWS probably fall into that category – then you've probably noticed that there have been a lot of dog food recalls in the last few months, especially over concerns about Salmonella. In fact, there has been a notable increase in Salmonella investigations in dog food recently. I've heard lots of dog owners speculating that they can't trust any dog foods now. People seem to be becoming rattled by the frequent voluntary recalls issued by various dog food companies. It would probably sound like nonsense if I told you that increased recalls over this issue were a good sign, right?

Actually, there have been some things going on behind the scenes in the world of the Food and Drug Administration and dog food companies that should make you feel better, even if it's temporarily resulting in more recalls.

For one thing, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine announced plans in March to investigate the incidence of Salmonella contamination in pet foods – which has meant increased scrutiny of the pet food industry. They made a similar announcement in November 2011: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/pet-food-salmonella-fda_n_1071850.html In March the FDA indicated that they had given an assignment to all of their district offices throughout the country to collect an undisclosed number of samples of domestically manufactured petfood products for analysis. The samples do not cover imported products in either import status or domestic imports. This sampling includes both petfoods as well as treats and nutritional supplements. The instructions were to collect samples from a wide variety of manufacturers and from different locations. Samples are collected from manufacturing sites, from distributors, and from retailers around the country. Canned foods are excluded from the assignment but all other kinds of foods are included – extruded, baked, smoked, frozen, and refrigerated. Inexpensive as well as super premium foods are included. The FDA doesn't care how much the food costs.

Note that the American Pet Products Association (APPA) http://www.americanpetproducts.org/newsletter/issue.asp?id=721#article5735 , a marketing survey group, reported at the time of the FDA's press release that 300 official samples would be collected. This information is not on the FDA site and I can't verify where it came from. According to APPA each district is supposed to collect six official and six investigational samples from non-canned petfoods. The sample foods will be foods for ALL PETS. They will collect five official and five investigational samples from pet treats; and, three official and investigational samples from vitamins, minerals and/or other nutritional supplements. The sampling will continue until September 30, 2013.

Again this information comes from the American Pet Products Association and they attribute it to the FDA. However, it is not found on the FDA site or with other information about the program.

The FDA seems to primarily be concerned about public health – human health. Petfoods are much more likely to be handled by humans than other animal feeds. Children, the elderly, and people who might have a compromised immune system can handle petfoods, leaving them susceptible to pathogenic microorganisms. There have been cases where Salmonella infection in people was traced back to exposure to pet products.

The FDA's concern about Salmonella in petfood isn't new. The agency has taken the view that animal feeds that contain Salmonella are contaminated and subject to enforcement action for decades. It's part of the Code of Federal Regulations. There is also a Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) that states that Salmonella-contaminated dry dog food is considered to be adulterated.

Once the findings for this assignment about Salmonella are collected, the FDA will probably use them to make further policy decisions regarding petfood. However, the FDA has made it clear that in the course of collecting their samples they will take action against any pet products they find to be contaminated. That's what's been happening in the last few months with the voluntary petfood recalls. The FDA agents have been collecting their samples and, if they find evidence of Salmonella, FDA “suggests” to the company that they issue a voluntary recall to take care of the problem. (FDA can do more than suggest if the company is not compliant. Most companies prefer to issue a voluntary recall.)

As mentioned, canned foods are not being examined at this time because these products are presumably produced in accordance with low acid canned food regulations so they are commercially sterile and don't pose any kind of risk to the public. However, the kibble, raw food, and treats you buy your dog that are manufactured in the U.S. are subject to testing by the FDA for Salmonella, at least for the near future. So, there may be some more recalls but at least you will know what the FDA is doing.

There could be another reason for an increase in recalls lately. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L.110-085), section 1005 directed the FDA to establish a Reportable Food Registry for Industry. http://www.petfood.aafco.org/RFRReportableFoodRegistry.aspx The Reportable Food Registry (RFR or the Registry) is an electronic portal for Industry to report when there is reasonable probability that an article of food will cause serious adverse health consequences. The Registry helps the FDA better protect public health by tracking patterns and targeting inspections. The RFR applies to all FDA-regulated categories of food and feed, except dietary supplements and infant formula. It is the company's responsibility to determine if the food has a reasonable probability of causing a severe adverse health consequence or death to humans or animals. Once this has been determined to exist, the company must notify the FDA using the RFR system within 24 hours of the determination. So, it's possible that in some cases a petfood company may be notifying the FDA about possible serious health consequences due to something in their food.

There may also be increased vigilance and testing by state feed control officials which are leading to more recalls.

And there's more. All of this testing by the FDA, as well as the Reportable Food Registry, could be to help support a proposed rule on Preventive Controls for Animal Food that will implement part of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). The proposed rule is expected to closely mirror the proposed rule for Preventive Controls for Human Food published in January of this year. http://agfdablog.com/tag/food-safety-modernization-act/ According to the FDA, the “Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the most sweeping reform of our food safety laws in more than 70 years, was signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011. It aims to ensure the U.S. food supply is safe by shifting the focus from responding to contamination to preventing it.” I think it's safe to say that one reason petfoods are taken so seriously in these regulations is because of the 2007 petfood recalls.

So, to sum up, the FDA is currently taking samples of petfoods and actively testing for Salmonella. This is a good thing. It doesn't mean that dog food companies are making worse food than they used to make or using worse ingredients. It means there is more testing. It also means there are going to be more regulations concerning petfoods. I know everyone is tired of recalls and worried about what to feed their dogs but the end result should be safer petfood.

In case you're curious, here's the FDA web site listing of the petfoods that have been recalled so far in 2013: http://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/safetyhealth/recallswithdrawals/default.htm