One area that has received a lot of attention in recent years is the use of puppy and kitten mills to breed and sell domestic animals as pets. This article will focus on the issues associated with puppy mills, although the laws and other considerations outlined here apply to kitten mills, horse breeding, and other animal-related commercial activities as well. It is the hope of the authors that greater awareness of the suffering of animals in these cruel commercial facilities will result in more action being taken to protect the unfortunate puppies, kittens, and other nonhuman animals from abuse by human animals.
Puppy Mills and Kitten Mills
Puppy mills are commercial dog-breeding facilities that aim to maximize profit by producing a high number of puppies at the lowest possible cost. According to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, puppy mill breeders opt to maximize space by keeping dogs tightly contained in small wire crates stacked atop one another or outdoor pens where the animals are exposed to extreme weather. Puppies are kept in cages with little to no time outside of confinement until they are sold. Puppy mills fall short of adequate care in nearly every possible way, specifically in the lack of veterinary care, socialization, and daily exercise.
Kitten mills, like puppy mills, breed and sell purebred kittens for profit, while the health and wellness of the kittens take much lower priority than their fiscal worth. Sophie Hirsch, in the article “Kitty Mills: Everything You Need to Know About the Cat Breeding Industry,” points out that kittens are kept in small, overcrowded cages where infection and parasites run rampant, and deformities are common due to inbreeding and insufficient living quarters. Some neighborhood pet stores or breeders source their cats from kitten mills due to the profitability of doing so. While many of these kittens are being bred for profit, hundreds of thousands of healthy kittens are being euthanized at animal shelters throughout the country.
Federal Anti-Cruelty Regulation
The Animal Welfare Act
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) (7 U.S.C. §§ 2131–59) was enacted in 1966 to protect animals and their owners from specific types of harm and ensure humane treatment and care during transportation in commerce, use in research facilities, and exhibition purposes. The owners of animals are protected from the theft of their animals by preventing the sale or use of animals that have been stolen. Any person, exhibitor, research facility, or operator of an auction sale subject to the AWA that violates any provisions of the AWA may be held liable for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation and may be ordered to cease and desist continuing such violation.
The Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act
The Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act of 2019 (18 U.S.C.A. § 48) makes it unlawful for “any person to purposely engage in animal crushing in or affecting interstate of foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” Animal crushing is defined in the PACT Act as conduct wherein living nonhuman mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians are purposely crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or otherwise subjected to serious bodily injury. The PACT Act makes acts of extreme animal cruelty federal crimes punishable by serious fines and incarceration for up to seven years.
The Horse Protection Act (HPA)
The Horse Protection Act (HPA) of 1970 (15 U.S.C. §§ 1821–31) outlaws the practice of “soring” show horses to improve their performance. “Soring” is the act of applying an irritating or blistering agent; inflicting a burn, cut, or laceration; injecting any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent on any limb of a horse; or using any other substance or device on any limb of a horse. The HPA deems soring a cruel and inhumane practice that simultaneously fosters unfair competition. Violation of the HPA results in a fine of up to $3,000 or incarceration for up to one year, or both. In addition to any fine, imprisonment, or civil penalty authorized under the HPA, any person convicted for a violation of the HPA may be disqualified from showing or exhibiting horses or judging or managing any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction for a period of at least one year.
The 28-Hour law
The 28-Hour Law, originally enacted in 1873 and then reenacted in 1906 and 1994 (49 U.S.C. § 80502), states that a carrier, receiver, or trustee or lessee of a carrier “may not confine animals in a vehicle or vessel for more than 28 consecutive hours without unloading the animals for feeding, water, and rest.” Under the law, the animals shall be unloaded in a humane way where they have access to food, water, and rest for a minimum of five consecutive hours. The 28-hour law is not applicable where the animals being transported have food, water, space, and an opportunity for rest in the vehicle or vessel in which they are being transported. Any carrier, receiver, trustee, or lessee of one of those carriers or owner or master of a vessel who violates the 28-Hour Law is liable for a civil penalty between $100 and $500 for each violation.
State Anti-Cruelty Regulation
As the authors live and practice in Florida, the discussion below focuses on Florida law, but similar statutes can be found in other jurisdictions.
Florida’s Cruelty to Animals Law (Fla. Stat. Ann. § 828.12) outlaws cruelty to animals and deems a violation of the statute punishable by a first-degree misdemeanor, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. The statute provides a detailed outline of animal cruelty, which includes tormenting, depriving of necessary sustenance or shelter, mutilating, killing, or committing an act that results in the cruel death of an animal.
Under Florida’s Animal Fighting Act (Fla. Stat. Ann. § 828.122), any person who knowingly baits, breeds, trains, transports, sells, possesses, or uses any animal for the purpose of animal fighting or baiting is guilty of a third-degree felony. The statute provides that any animals and equipment used in committing the violation must be seized from any person who is found to have violated the Act.
Florida’s “animals found in distress” civil statute (Fla. Stat. Ann. § 828.073) allows for the confiscation of animals found in distress by law enforcement, government personnel, and animal rescue agencies. Under this statute, the court may revoke the original owner’s custody of the animal and allow law enforcement or other agencies to put the animal up for adoption. The court may also order that other animals that were not confiscated but were in the custody of the owner be turned over to the agent.
The Florida Pet Law, effective July 1, 2024 (Fla. Stat. Ann. § 828.29), requires sufficient vetting of dogs and cats prior to sale. Each dog must be sold with an “official certificate of veterinary inspection,” which verifies that the examining veterinarian warrants no sign of contagious disease or parasites. A pet dealer may not knowingly misrepresent the health of any dog offered for sale within the state. Violation of the Florida Pet Law is punishable as a first-degree misdemeanor.
Additional Florida regulation effective in 2024 (Fla. Stat. Ann. § 828.03) allows for the appointment of investigative agents by any county, society, or association for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. Agents may be appointed for the specific purpose of investigating violations of any law of the state for the purpose of protecting children and animals or preventing cruelty thereto.
Florida counties have established animal abuser registries, which maintain a detailed list of those convicted of animal abuse crimes. Animal abusers remain on the registry for three to ten years depending on their offense. While on the registry, animal abusers are prohibited from owning or residing in a household with an animal, and they are prohibited from obtaining animals in any way. The Florida legislature has attempted to codify animal abuser registries in state law but has been unsuccessful thus far.
Regulatory Challenges
Commercial breeders, including puppy mills, that qualify for licensing under the AWA include those who sell to brokers, research facilities, or pet stores. However, according to Melissa Towsey in her 2010 article “Something Stinks: The Need for Environmental Regulation of Puppy Mills,” many puppy mills avoid the purview of the AWA because they sell directly to the public and are subject to a retail exception.
The AWA regulates commercial dog-breeding facilities through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). APHIS inspectors are authorized to inspect facilities on an as-needed basis. Unfortunately, the government’s resources are overtaxed. According to Lyle Muller and Jacob Luplow, APHIS in 2014 had only 120 inspectors to check some 7,300 licensed and registered animal breeding facilities nationwide.
Animals as Property: An Evolving Understanding
In all states, animals are treated under the law as personal property rather than family members. In Florida, the precedence for this treatment was set in Kennedy v. Byas, 867 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004). Here, the court held that while pet owners consider their pets part of the family, to treat animals as family in civil actions would “place an unnecessary burden on the ever-burgeoning caseload of courts in resolving tort claims for individuals.” Therefore, while a dog may be considered part of the family, under Florida law, dogs are mere personal property.
And although Florida has a wealth of local ordinances throughout its counties aimed at the protection of animals, state law currently defines an animal as “every living dumb creature” (Fla. Stat. Ann. § 828.02). In comparison, the state of Maine offers a much more progressive, thorough definition of an animal: “‘Animal’ means every living, sentient creature not a human being” (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 1011). As noted by Richard L. Cupp Jr. in his article “Animals as More Than ‘Mere Things,’ But Still Property: A Call for Continuing Evolution of the Animal Welfare Paradigm,” the recognition of animals as sentient property, rather than mere personal property, could be the first step toward changing the legal significance of an animal.
Indeed, state legislatures across the country have acknowledged that animals can suffer; anti-cruelty laws preventing the infliction of cruelty upon animals have been adopted in every state.
Further, the federal Uniform Trust Act of 2000 (Unif. Trust Code § 408 (amended 2001 and 2003), 4 U.L.A. 408 (2000)) grants animals a sort of legal personhood in the context of trust enforcement. The Act allows for the creation of “pet trusts,” which make a pet the beneficiary of a trust for the care of the animal and allow the assignment of a court appointee to enforce the trust.
Practical Guidance
It is the responsibility of the prosecutor’s office to pursue criminal charges against those violating our anti-cruelty laws. Too often, they fail to do so. To ensure the enforcement of these laws, the general public must call on our government officials to take action. Legislative change is another avenue for furthering animal protection efforts, though animal protection bills often struggle to find sufficient backing from members of Congress or state legislatures.
According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the best way for members of the public to support legislation against puppy mills is to contact their state and federal legislators, write letters to local newspapers, and educate the local community on the cruelty of puppy mills. To stay informed on the evolving landscape of animal welfare regulations, interested readers should get involved with HSUS, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), and other animal welfare organizations and become a member of state bar animal law sections and committees (e.g., the Animal Law Section of the Florida Bar) to stay up-to-date on animal law efforts throughout the state and contribute to the animal welfare movement.
