FEDERAL LICENSE: DOG BREEDING

Another consideration in the production and sale of puppies is distribution.

Will the puppies be sold directly to consumers who may drive to the facility and see the animals prior to purchase? Or will the puppies be sold to pet stores, online (through websites or other posts — sight unseen), or brokers (who re-sale the animals to pet stores)?

The answer can determine if a federal license is required. 

Federal licenses for dog breeders are required under the Animal Welfare Act (federal law). The license is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). If a breeder has more than 4 breeding females and are selling to brokers, pet stores, or sight unseen they are required to have a federal license. ("Sight unseen" means the puppy is not literally seen and touched before a purchase.)

Based on research by Animal Folks, it appears that some Winona County dog breeders with local permits do not have a federal license or have dropped it. This would be a violation of law. See BREEDERS.

WARNING: Graphic photos below.

Who are the puppies sold to?
Certificates of Veterinary Inspection (CVI) are required to be filed when animals are transported across state lines.

Animal Folks' research shows that Winona County breeders are shipping and selling to brokers and pet stores out of Minnesota, such as to Petland.

For examples of brokers and pet stores that Winona County breeders sell to, go to ISSUE.

Is a federal license a stamp of approval for good care of the animals?
Short answer, no. Often supporters of puppy mills will say "these breeders are licensed by the USDA," implying that a federal license means the facility is providing the highest care and welfare for each animal. A federal license is not a stamp of approval. The USDA has stated that their standards are minimal (also referred to as "survival"); if the USDA sees or suspects animal cruelty they do not report it to local law enforcement.

In regard to the effectiveness of the USDA and the protection of animals, review the following:

• Violations — In recent years, the USDA changed its inspection processes. As published in The Washington Post, warnings, violations, and penalties cited by the USDA plummeted. See chart at right.
  
  
• Article — In October 2021, the National Geographic published a review of the USDA’s conduct over the past years.
  
  
• Lawsuits – Multiple lawsuits have been filed against the USDA for its inept processes in the protection of animals in federally licensed facilities. ASPCA filed a recent lawsuit against the USDA for its nonenforcement policy. 
  
  
• Audit - In 2020, the​ OIG conducted an audit of the USDA-APHIS. Report published June 2021. Due to COVID, they were not able to enter the facilities; however, they found the USDA did not consistently address complaints.
  

• Audit — In 2010, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an audit of the USDA inspection processes. This audit documented significant failures by the USDA to protect animals within these facilities. A photo below (one of many) are from this audit, illustrating the harm to animals even though the facility was licensed by the USDA. Photos are from two breeding facilities outside of Minnesota.
  

Left photo is one of many photos from the 2010 OIG audit of the USDA of licensed dog breeders. Dog is covered in ticks. Facility had been licensed and inspected by the USDA.
Photo at right is of an emaciated golden retriever found inside an Iowa dog breeding facility (owner, Daniel Gingerich), licensed by the USDA. Photo taken in 2021.

Animal Folks has worked on numerous puppy mill cases in Minnesota. In many animal cruelty cases (where charges were filed by the state), the facility was still operating with a federal license. See Minnesota examples at Puppy Mill cases. A facility may have repeat violations year after year and the USDA will still allow the facility to operate. USDA policy and procedural changes in recent years (see above) have made this situation worse.

Can the county step in and set standards or enforcement for animal welfare?
Yes, the county may take action. Animal welfare is not reserved for the federal government. 

​The United States Department of Agriculture has the authority to license and inspect dog breeding kennels under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA; federal law). While the AWA authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate animal treatment and transportation standards, it also explicitly authorizes cooperation with state and local governments (7 U.S. C. section 2145 (b)):

• “The Secretary is authorized to cooperate with the officials of the various States or political subdivisions thereof in carrying out the purposes of this chapter and of any State, local, or municipal legislation or ordinance on the same subject.”

Furthermore, as noted by a federal appeals court (DeHart v. Town of Austin, Ind., 39 F.3d 718, 722 (7th Cir. 1994): 

• “the Animal Welfare Act does not evince an intent to preempt state or local regulation of animal or public welfare. Indeed, the Animal Welfare Act expressly contemplates state and local regulation of animals.”
  

STATE LICENSE: DOG BREEDING

​Animal welfare is not reserved for the state government either.

The MN Board of Animal Health (BAH) has been given the authority to regulate dog and cat breeding kennels under Minn. Stat. sec. 347.57-.65. However, state and local laws overlap. (Example: The state may set a minimum wage per law; but local laws may make the wage higher, as is the case in the city of Minneapolis. This action is constitutional.)

Local governments should request all documents from the Board of Animal Health in regards to licensing, inspection, and enforcement actions for state-licensed dog breeding facilities. Reports and statutory language specific to the care of dogs should be reviewed. Winona county staff has indicated that they delegate all "animal welfare" to the state; however, it appears no action has been taken by the county to verify if the state has, indeed, upheld its duties and worked to protect animals in these kennels.

Two examples: Because mental health is so important, required socialization and enrichment of each dog with adequate staffing of the facility for daily observation of the animals' well-being were specifically added to the Minnesota dog and cat breeder law (Minn. Stat. sec. 347.57-.65). The statutory language reads:

• (a) subd. 4: "animals must be provided daily enrichment and must be provided positive physical contact with human beings and compatible animals at least twice daily unless a veterinarian determines such activities would adversely affect the health or well-being of the animal;"
• (a) subd. 7: "the commercial breeder must provide adequate staff to maintain the facility and observe each animal daily to monitor each animal's health and well-being, and to properly care for the animals."
  

It is unknown how or if this language is being enforced by the state. The BAH has refused to provide any information to the public about the dog and cat breeder law, including training and inspection reports; therefore, it is difficult to determine if all requirements per state law are followed. Minn. Stat sec. 13.643, subd. 6 (b) makes data from the dog and cat breeder law nonpublic; however, per subdivision 6 (c), the BAH has the authority to disclose this data “to any person, agency, or to the public if the board determines that the access will aid in the law enforcement process or the protection of public or animal health or safety."

Further, the state agency responsible for dog breeder inspections (Board of Animal Health) is governed by livestock production. Four of the six board members are, by law, livestock producers. The majority of senior staff and inspectors have livestock backgrounds. (This is due, in large part, to the fact that the BAH's primary mission is control of dangerous animal disease, especially within the food supply.) When inspection processes for the breeder law were first created, the BAH program director stated that they were patterned after pork production processes. The science of canine health and well-being is unique and differs from livestock production.

NEW STATE BILL: Companion Animal Board

A Companion Animal Board bill has been introduced at the Minnesota State Legislature to address companion animal issues. This bill will establish a board with experts in companion animal health and well-being. Once passed, enforcement of the dog and cat breeder law, including licensing and inspections, will be transferred to the Companion Animal Board. (The dog and cat breeder law is currently housed with the MN Board of Animal Health (BAH) whose mission is control of dangerous animal disease with a primary focus on livestock production.) Learn more about the Companion Animal Board bill at: www.mncab.org