USDA Breeder List

[livingdustmops]

Originally Posted by Ashley V

Unforunately, I did research on his "breeder" a few months back and the owner shot all of the dogs because he was told to take them to the vet or get shut down.

I read about this happening but whatever happened to the greeder?

[Obie]

Originally Posted by Ashley V

Unforunately, I did research on his "breeder" a few months back and the owner shot all of the dogs because he was told to take them to the vet or get shut down.

Those dogs were cocker spaniels and not Yorkshire Terriers. It was the Zimmerman family. They inforced the violations imposed on him prior to killing his dogs and his name is now mud because the county is out to get him and his family.

[Ashley V]

Originally Posted by Obie

Those dogs were cocker spaniels and not Yorkshire Terriers. It was the Zimmerman family. They inforced the violations imposed on him prior to killing his dogs and his name is now mud because the county is out to get him and his family.

Good I hope they are out to get him... that whole family is a bunch of puppy mill breeders... but that was the one that Chip came from.

[Wylie's Mom]

This is a very interesting article called Inspecting The Inspections - it's about the USDA's kennel inspections. Very disappointing. I found this passage of particular interest:

You've heard the expression "A
license to kill"? Being a USDA breeder
or broker is "A license to abuse". If you
or I tie a dog out back and starve it to
death, we have violated state and/or
local laws that protect animals from
abuse and neglect. If a USDA licensed
facility does the same thing, they have
violated the 'rules and regulations', not
the law.

Here is the article: http://www.igsafehouse.org/livestock.../LSReport5.pdf

[Wylie's Mom]

Another interesting article on just how bad things can get, despite the USDA.

Ten breeders and brokers, 473 USDA violations

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

This is a very interesting article called Inspecting The Inspections - it's about the USDA's kennel inspections. Very disappointing. I found this passage of particular interest:

You've heard the expression "A
license to kill"? Being a USDA breeder
or broker is "A license to abuse". If you
or I tie a dog out back and starve it to
death, we have violated state and/or
local laws that protect animals from
abuse and neglect. If a USDA licensed
facility does the same thing, they have
violated the 'rules and regulations', not
the law.

Here is the article: http://www.igsafehouse.org/livestock.../LSReport5.pdf

Well, that clears some things up for me, now I can better understand why these new laws are being addressed in the penal code by the various states.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

This is a very interesting article called Inspecting The Inspections - it's about the USDA's kennel inspections. Very disappointing. I found this passage of particular interest:

You've heard the expression "A
license to kill"? Being a USDA breeder
or broker is "A license to abuse". If you
or I tie a dog out back and starve it to
death, we have violated state and/or
local laws that protect animals from
abuse and neglect. If a USDA licensed
facility does the same thing, they have
violated the 'rules and regulations', not
the law.

Here is the article: http://www.igsafehouse.org/livestock.../LSReport5.pdf

I don't think that being a USDA licensed breeder protects you from state anti-cruelty laws. The state criminal laws can still be enforced against them. The USDA law won't pre-empt the state law. Now, the prosecutor might not prosecute for whatever reason-- good or bad-- but I don't see a reason why they could not if they decided to pursue it.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wildcard

I don't think that being a USDA licensed breeder protects you from state anti-cruelty laws. The state criminal laws can still be enforced against them. The USDA law won't pre-empt the state law. Now, the prosecutor might not prosecute for whatever reason-- good or bad-- but I don't see a reason why they could not if they decided to pursue it.

However, if the USDA inspector isn't required to report them to anyone, who would ever know? Still, it is another reason why state laws are so important.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by wildcard

I don't think that being a USDA licensed breeder protects you from state anti-cruelty laws. The state criminal laws can still be enforced against them. The USDA law won't pre-empt the state law. Now, the prosecutor might not prosecute for whatever reason-- good or bad-- but I don't see a reason why they could not if they decided to pursue it.

Um, I don't think the USDA is exactly turning around after giving their citations and then calling in law enforcement to dole out charges of animal cruelty. It'd be like admitting that what they (the USDA) do is totally ineffective, which it clearly is.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

However, if the USDA inspector isn't required to report them to anyone, who would ever know? Still, it is another reason why state laws are so important.

If I had my own dog tied out in a neglectful way (and no. before you ask, I don't tie my dogs out) law enforcement would not know about it unless it was reported either. The author of the article was basically saying that an individual with one dog could be prosecuted but a miller could not be for the same thing. I don't believe that to be true. If the USDA law preempted state law why would states bother trying to pass their "puppy mill" legislation? Saying the millers are essentially protected from current state cruelty by having USDA licenses is not correct. It is just another way to try to convince people that states need special laws for millers.

[Nancy1999]

I've been looking for organizations that are concerned with protecting pets, but are not against breeding for them. I found one organization called CAPS, (Companion Animal Protection Society) I don’t know much about it yet, but it seems to be pretty good.

I was watching a video made by CAPS, interviewing USDA breeders who sold to the Hunt Corporation. Hunt, of course, claims that they, as well as USDA inspect the dogs they sell, and their kennels are the highest standards. Larry Watts, a USDA breeder who sells to the Hunt Corporation states:

" I told him (a USDA inspector), I told that one guy one the these days, one day out here, oh he wasn't getting smart, but he was telling me I need to do this and do that. And I said, 'I'm just not that concerned about it, And he said, 'what do you mean' and I said, I'll 'just have me a dispersal shooting.' He didn't like that much. I was dead serious. I'd get rid of 'em. I'd have a dispersal shooting. . . I shot a few, but it was out of necessity."

View Investigation Report

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wildcard

If I had my own dog tied out in a neglectful way (and no. before you ask, I don't tie my dogs out) law enforcement would not know about it unless it was reported either. The author of the article was basically saying that an individual with one dog could be prosecuted but a miller could not be for the same thing. I don't believe that to be true. If the USDA law preempted state law why would states bother trying to pass their "puppy mill" legislation? Saying the millers are essentially protected from current state cruelty by having USDA licenses is not correct. It is just another way to try to convince people that states need special laws for millers.

You seem to be forgetting that most millers live in very private areas. Not too many people have access to these kennels. I think on another thread you said you talked to a couple of local policeman who weren't even aware of any kennels in their areas, yet it had a high population of Amish who often have kennels. Them not being aware of any kennels, does not mean that there are no kennels, it just means that nobody has reported them for any violations, but then again who would, the USDA? I think not.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

You seem to be forgetting that most millers live in very private areas. Not too many people have access to these kennels. I think on another thread you said you talked to a couple of local policeman who weren't even aware of any kennels in their areas, yet it had a high population of Amish who often have kennels. Them not being aware of any kennels, does not mean that there are no kennels, it just means that nobody has reported them for any violations, but then again who would, the USDA? I think not.

My point is simply that the author of that article is saying that individuals would be criminally prosecuted but millers could not be because of the USDA. That is just not true.

Please know that not all Amish communities have puppy millers as members. I would hate for people to be misled and assume that Amish= mill. That is just not the case.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by wildcard

My point is simply that the author of that article is saying that individuals would be criminally prosecuted but millers could not be because of the USDA. That is just not true.

Please know that not all Amish communities have puppy millers as members. I would hate for people to be misled and assume that Amish= mill. That is just not the case.

I did not see that as what the author was saying. I think her point was that IF the USDA is conducting an inspection and saw a starving dog at that kennel - all the USDA could do is give a citation. That's it. Big deal. The USDA leaves and you know that owner likely does to clear that citation? Shoots and kills the dog; the citation is then cleared when the USDA returns. That was her point. Unless "the law" happens upon that property to witness animal cruelty, then YES, the USDA rules and regulations DO, ostensibly, pre-empt the law. Her point wasn't that they *couldn't* be prosecuted, her point was that they are *not* prosecuted, in all likelihood.

No one in this thread has ever implied or said that Amish communities=Mills. People have mentioned the Amish mills in Indiana and elsewhere - those are 2 entirely different points.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I've been looking for organizations that are concerned with protecting pets, but are not against breeding for them. I found one organization called CAPS, (Companion Animal Protection Society) I don’t know much about it yet, but it seems to be pretty good.

I was watching a video made by CAPS, interviewing USDA breeders who sold to the Hunt Corporation. Hunt, of course, claims that they, as well as USDA inspect the dogs they sell, and their kennels are the highest standards. Larry Watts, a USDA breeder who sells to the Hunt Corporation states:

" I told him (a USDA inspector), I told that one guy one the these days, one day out here, oh he wasn't getting smart, but he was telling me I need to do this and do that. And I said, 'I'm just not that concerned about it, And he said, 'what do you mean' and I said, I'll 'just have me a dispersal shooting.' He didn't like that much. I was dead serious. I'd get rid of 'em. I'd have a dispersal shooting. . . I shot a few, but it was out of necessity."

View Investigation Report

WOW. What a disgusting human being. If you could call that "human", that is. Yeah, great solution to his problem there .

CAPS looks interesting, Nancy, good find.

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

You seem to be forgetting that most millers live in very private areas. Not too many people have access to these kennels. I think on another thread you said you talked to a couple of local policeman who weren't even aware of any kennels in their areas, yet it had a high population of Amish who often have kennels. Them not being aware of any kennels, does not mean that there are no kennels, it just means that nobody has reported them for any violations, but then again who would, the USDA? I think not.

Exactly. If people or the law (other than the USDA) don't have access to witness the cruelty, then how on earth can they ever be charged with it? In my opinion, the USDA should have to disclose Mills to their local Humane Ass'ns (no, this is not the HSUS) and let them decide if they're operating cruelty-free or not. The USDA isn't reporting cruelty, just handing out citations....for years on end.