Problematic puppy mills to have less restrictions in Missouri if new bills pass, advocates say

Bob Baker, director of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, spoke in opposition to the bills at their respective public hearings. For HB 2265 and SB 937, he said the bills are a preemptive measure by the pet breeding industry in Missouri to make sure there couldn't be any future regulation on pet stores at the local level. No local rules to ban pet stores have been enacted in Missouri.

"[Proponents of the bills] want no local regulations whatsoever," Baker said. "They want to simply rely on state regulations, but the state laws and regulations don't really address many of the problems we see in pet breeders and pet stores."

Of the more than 100 people who spoke during the bill's hearing, only four spoke in support of the bill's passing. Two of those people were representatives of Petland, the "only national pet store chain in the United States that still sells puppies" and "the largest retailer of puppy mill dogs," according to the HSUS. The company has multiple locations around the St. Louis and Kansas City areas.

HSUS believes Petland is pushing the bill to reduce local control and avoid violations and lawsuits the company has seen in other states.

"One of their stores had to pay out $200,000 after a lawsuit brought against them by the state of Florida," Atkinson said in an email. "A Petland store in Virginia was raided by the police and the manager arrested for animal cruelty. He pled guilty. Petland has been sued repeatedly for selling families sick puppies. Now they want to take away your right to petition your city council to do anything about their business practices."

Petland Vice President of Legislative and Public Affairs Elizabeth Kunzelman said the company supports the bill because it would prevent sudden pet store closures like one recently seen in Arkansas.

"It doesn’t matter if you are a dry cleaner, shoe store or pet store. If you are legally operating, small business should not be subject to arbitrary decisions," Kunzelman said in an email. 

"This bill would prevent a circumstance similar to what happened in Fayetteville, AR last year when a retail pet sale ban was passed AFTER a business had obtained all of their permits; invested nearly $1 million dollars in fixtures, development and employees; and was a week away from opening. The state of Arkansas has since passed similar language to protect responsible small businesses. Our bill prevents local municipalities from banning the sale of puppies from pet stores. It does NOT prevent local municipalities from regulating, licensing or inspecting local pet stores."

Baker said he tried to offer an amendment to the bill that would have allowed city and county governments to only ban or regulate pet stores in their area if they could show good cause for public health, consumer protection and animal welfare. Baker said the amendment was rejected.

The bills previously banned pet shops from purchasing from animal breeders with multiple repeat or critical violations. That language has since been removed from the bill as a result of people not agreeing on what the prohibition should look like, Kunzelman said.

"Our bill last year was focused solely on ensuring state-licensed and law-abiding pet stores that are operating can’t be arbitrarily closed by the government," Kunzelman said. "The reason the other provisions - that were new to the bill this year - were removed was because, like many other bills, there are provisions that various parties can’t come to agreement on and until THEY can work out their differences, we wanted to proceed with this one simple concept."

The two bills also face opposition from the Animal Legal Defense Fund, a national nonprofit focused on animal law advocacy.

"Pet stores make ideal partners for [puppy] mills because they allow the cruelty at the mills to remain hidden from consumers," the organization said on its website. "Retail pet sale bans are a powerful way for communities to fight puppy mills because they limit the supply and demand of mill-bred animals, reduce financial incentives for mill operators, and encourage the adoption of rescued animals in need of homes."

5 On Your Side reached out to both Rep. Baker and Sen. Brown with multiple questions about the bills. Neither returned our request for comment.

HB 2265 was passed in the House's Agriculture Policy Committee on Feb. 1. It now heads to the House floor for debate.

HB 1826 is a bit more nuanced. Under current state law, authorities can confiscate neglected or abused animals from breeders. The breeders then must appear at a disposition hearing within 30 days of the confiscation where a judge will determine whether the breeder is guilty of neglecting or abusing the animals.

Despite the disposition hearing process in place, HSUS said it usually takes numerous violations before a dog breeder loses their license.

"Commercial breeding regulations are enforced with citations, possible fines and possible license revocations," Atkinson said in an email. "Any conditions that violate the state cruelty code have to be referred to local law enforcement. The Agriculture Dept inspectors cannot enforce the states animal cruelty law. Due to the penalties available, it takes a lot of violations of commercial dog breeding regulations for any meaningful penalty to be employed."

Rep. Smith's bill would lower the 30-day window to 15 days, a move that would shorten the amount of time an animal owner's animals are confiscated, according to Missouri Federation of Animal Owners Lobbyist Karen Strange. Animal owners suspected of abuse must pay for the cost of boarding and care for their animals at the end of the disposition hearing, no matter whether they are found innocent or guilty.

"Our standpoint is that it should be the taking party who should be liable for the costs," Strange told 5 On Your Side. "For instance, if it's a humane society group that takes the animals, then they should be responsible for taking those animals if the person is found innocent ... If a person is truly innocent, they should not have to pay exorbitant fees to get their animals back if they have done nothing wrong."

While Smith's bill lowers the number of days between the confiscation and the disposition, it does not remove care cost responsibility from the animal owner.

The time reduction may have unintended consequences and put innocent breeders at risk, Baker fears. He believes the shortened timespan would force prosecutors and defendants to gather all forensic evidence, schedule witnesses, get medical reports on each animal and schedule a court date in a near-impossible window.

"Prior to the establishment of civil disposition trials in 1993, abused and neglected animals were frequently left in the hands of their abusers for a year or more until there was a criminal trial," Baker said. "Current law provides an expeditious civil trial (within 30 days) to determine if, in fact, animals have been abused/neglected ... If HB 1826 passes and the innocent animal owner does not have the necessary time to prepare their defense, they will lose their animals permanently. Even if found not guilty at the criminal trial." 

5 On Your Side sent multiple questions to Rep. Smith regarding this bill, but Smith only responded with "Currently we are working on a House Committee Substitute which we will believe will satisfy all parties concerns."

HB 1826 has not yet received a vote in the House's Agriculture Policy Committee.

The Missouri Pet Breeders Association declined 5 On Your Side's Request for comment on the bills.

Top St. Louis headlines

Get the latest news and details throughout the St. Louis area from 5 On Your Side broadcasts here.