[s213062]

Hi all, thanks for the concern for Braxton. He is still doing great and is a loveable, sweet puppy. For those of you who would like to know more about the current breeder laws in Missouri I recently wrote a legal research paper my last year of law school covering the topic because of the experience I went through in purchasing my yorkie from Kram Haus Kennels. I welcome any comments/suggestions. I would like to present my concerns to the Missouri legislature in hope of changing the law.


I can not attach the file so I've cut and pasted it below in more than one posting because of the word limit:

Advocating For a Change in Missouri Animal Law
By: Jennifer Van Der Steen

The purpose of this paper is to examine the legal issues surrounding the purchase of an unhealthy animal from a seller in the state of Missouri. Missouri is generally known for its reputation as “puppy mill state” and for its lax laws relating to animal care, inspections, and consumer protection. When a buyer purchases an unhealthy puppy or other animal in Missouri the buyer has very little recourse against the seller, unless the contract specifically gives the buyer rights to recover against the seller. Many other states have “puppy lemon laws” requiring the seller to reimburse the buyer for veterinarian costs and for the purchase price of the animal. Missouri does not have similar puppy lemon laws but does have other legal theories that support a buyer’s remedies against a seller. This paper will look at legal theories supporting puppy lemon laws as well as compare other states laws advocating for consumer protection.




I. Federal Law
The Animal Welfare Act regulates the humane care, handling, purchase, sale, treatment and transportation of certain animals in situations involving dog and cat breeders, puppy mills, and other animal handlers. An individual covered by the Act is required to obtain a license from the Secretary of Agriculture. The Act authorizes the United States Department of Agriculture to promulgate regulations applicable to the health and safety of animal welfare. The regulations include maintaining a minimum standard for handling, housing, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation, shelter, adequate veterinary care, and separation by species necessary for humane handling, care, or treatment of animals. The regulations also include exercise of dogs, as determined by an attending veterinarian, and for a physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being of primates.
The United States Department of Agriculture makes regular inspections to ensure licensed facilities are complying with the requirements of the Act and if an individual is found in violation of the Act the violator may be fined, have their licensed revoked, or found to be criminally liable.




II. Missouri State Law
In 1992 the Missouri State Legislature established the Animal Care Facilities Act. The Act requires a person operating a boarding facility, pet shop, pound, dealer and commercial breeders to obtain a license from the director. An inspection is required to obtain a license and an inspection is to be required annually or on the basis of a complaint. If the state veterinarian or an animal welfare official finds a substantial ongoing risk to the health and welfare of the animals or to pose a substantial ongoing risk that consumers will purchase diseased animals from such person a temporary or permanent injunction can be issued and the animals can be taken into custody.
Specific regulations require adequate housing, outdoor cages must allow the animal to sit, stand, lay, and turn around, and cages must prevent foot and leg injuries and meet certain size requirements. Animals must be supplied with adequate food and water and sanitary conditions. Floors should be sanitized and spot cleaned daily, and waste, bedding, debris and dead animals must be removed regularly and frequently. In addition, health records of each animal are to be kept for one year on each animal or liter, and adequate ventilation, temperature and light are to be maintained on the premises.

III. Missouri Department of Agriculture Inspectors Fail State Audits
In 2001 and 2004 the Missouri office of the state auditor, under the direction of Claire McCaskill, completed performance audits on the Missouri Animal Care Facilities Inspection Program. , Both audits failed the program and shed light onto what was really taking place in the Missouri Department of Agriculture inspection programs.
The 2001 report found: the state inspections to issue few sanctions when violations were present, a conflict of interest in top management, state inspections are less through than federal inspections, and the program was overall lax in measuring performance. The Missouri Animal Care Facilities Act provides the authority to enforce sanctions and penalties against commercial breeders. However, the inspections have failed to use this authority in their inspections. Instead of citing violating breeders the inspectors have instead encouraged the breeders to comply with standards. The audit compared facilities that had been given a state inspection that was then followed by a federal inspection. Both inspections look for the same violations. In 1992 the Missouri state legislature established the Animal Care Facilities Act and in 1994 established the Animal Care Facilities Act Program to carry out the Act. The program was modeled after the United States Department of Agriculture regulation of minimum requirements for the operation of animal care facilities. State inspectors did not document all and in most cases any violations, when federal inspectors performed their inspection many violations were documented. One state inspector stated, “he does not nitpick breeders like federal inspectors do.” In the federal inspection program breeders are cited for violations and then if the same violation is cited again at a later date the sanction increases and the breeder is subject to the lose of his/her license. When state inspectors do not cite for violations and these violations are not later corrected there is no incentive for the breeder to comply.
Another serious concern discussed in the audits is the conflict of interest problem the state inspectors have within the department. The program is managed and operated by persons who have spouses operating commercial breeding facilities. The audit also found the program inspectors made little use of available information to improve their operations. The inspectors did not make use of the federal inspection results, and the program directors did not make use of analyzing the inspector’s weekly activity reports to implement program changes to make a better use of the inspector’s time. A management reporting system would allow management to review and question the inspector’s activities.
In 2004 a follow-up review audit of the 2001 audit was performed. Unfortunately the majority of the findings in the first audit were still occurring. As in the 2001 audit, federal inspectors were still finding many violations the state inspectors were not citing. “Despite enhanced procedures to assist the thoroughness of the inspection process, the majority of inspectors believe it unnecessary to report all violations observed at licensed facilities. Those inspectors believe they should not report minor violations.” In addition, mandatory training courses have not been implemented within the program. While there has been some increased usage of penalties since 2001 the program still fails to actively use the authority granted by the Act. Instead of using the express authority in the Act to use administrative hearings, confiscate animals, and to enforce penalties the program would prefer to pursue settlements and the voluntary surrender of licenses. As a result of this lax enforcement by the state inspectors animals are in grave risk as well as consumers who purchase these animals.
The 2004 audit also found the inspectors have not meet the statutory requirements of inspecting all licensed facilities on an annual basis and inspecting pre-licensing facilities. The report noted a problem with the key personnel vacancies not being filled and a number of the inspectors are not on a full-time basis. In addition to this, the workload of the program has increased significantly.
As stated in the 2001 audit the program has not implemented a management information system to account for and analyze the work of the inspectors. As a result the program is missing opportunities to improve.
These audits indicate a very serious public health concern over the breeding and animal care in animal care facilities. The breeders have no incentive to comply with the regulations the Missouri legislature has enacted. As a direct result of this animals are suffering all over Missouri. The problem is perpetuated when an unsuspecting buyer purchases an animal from these conditions. It is the buyer who ultimately pays the cost of the breeder’s non compliance with Missouri law. To remedy this the buyer should have some legal protection to gain recourse against the breeder. The Missouri legislature has done its job by enacting law to protect these animals, unfortunately the Missouri Department of Agriculture is not enforcing that law. If Missouri would pass what’s known as “puppy lemon laws” this would give a buyer a remedy to enforce the main principles of the Missouri Animal Care Facilities Act against the breeder. The Missouri Animal Care Facilities Act sought to penalize facilities raising animals in unhealthy, unsanitary conditions. These conditions lead to a variety of communicable diseases in animals as well as many other health problems. Many other states have puppy lemon laws that offer consumer protection for unhealthy animals purchased from a retailer or breeder.