Proposal would keep animals from puppy mills out of Suffolk

Suffolk legislators are discussing a proposal to restrict where pet stores and online dealers get puppies and kittens, in what animal advocates called a step toward curbing dogs bred in 'puppy mills.'

The proposed law also would require annual inspections by the county's department of consumer affairs of pet dealers selling nine or more dogs or cats a year.

Pet-store owners voiced concern at a Riverhead meeting Tuesday it will be another layer of bureaucracy, but many said they supported the bill because it would protect animal safety.

MULTIMEDIA: Puppy of the Day | LI pets | Pets for adoption | Your pet photos | Animals on the loose

INTERACT: Share your pet photos | LI's popular dog names | Popular dog breeds

The measure prevents Suffolk pet stores from buying animals from breeders with serious violations from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or numerous minor violations.

'This is going to effectively shut down the sale of puppy mill dogs in Suffolk County,' said Legis. Jay Schneiderman (I-Montauk), who introduced the bill.

Suffolk County is the first municipality in the state to try to regulate sales in pet stores under a law that gave them such authority in January.

The bill sets standards for the size of the cage and how cages are stacked, and requires the stores post that the inspection reports from the breeders are available on request. There would be a $500 fine per violation of the county's law.

The latest version of the bill was presented Tuesday at the legislature's general meeting in Riverhead.

It came after months of negotiations between national and local animal advocates for shelters and rescue dogs and cats, and pet-store owners and breeders, who said many consumers want a more predictable experience of buying a breed from a storefront.

About 25 advocates, many of whom said they were volunteers with Long Island animal shelters, called on the legislature Tuesday in Riverhead to pass the bill, describing the 'horrors' of puppy mills.

Pamela Green, director of Kent Animal Shelter in Calverton, called many pet-shop dogs 'consumer fraud at its finest.'

'People think they're getting a cute little dog in a pet shop, but sometimes, they're getting a financial nightmare,' she said.

A nearly equal number of pet-store owners and happy customers defended pet stores. Pet-store and pure-breed owners said they supported the latest version of the bill, though some store owners expressed frustration with another layer of inspection and regulation.

'I'm tired of being treated as some type of lower form of life,' said Barbara Maple, owner of Petite Pets in Huntington. 'Nobody loves their puppies more than me.'

She said federal, state and, now, local oversight 'is starting to become so redundant and it's the same paperwork over and over. . . . It takes away time from taking care of puppies.'

Ira Nierman, owner of Canine Corral Kennels, said he could live with the bill, which he called a 'compromise on both sides.'

'It doesn't put pet stores out of business,' he said.

An earlier version of the measure would have only allowed pet stores to sell puppies that were 14 weeks old, which breeders and pet store owners said would have effectively put them out of business. The current version puts the age limit at eight weeks, which matches existing state and federal standards.

Bob Yarnall Jr., president and chief executive of the American Canine Association in Florida said in Riverhead Tuesday that the association could support the bill.

'No one wants to buy from a bad actor,' he said.

Dale Bartlett, public policy manager for The Humane Society of the United States, said New York City will hear a bill on pet-store restrictions Wednesday. 'It at least begins shutting puppy mills out of Suffolk County,' he said.

He also noted that unlike some municipalities, Suffolk's ban would include pet dealers who sell their animals online.

The bill would not allow a pet dealer, defined as a for-profit business that sells nine or more dogs or cats a year, from buying from a breeder who has had:

A serious violation, called a 'direct violation,' from the USDA within two years;

A 'no access' violation, one in which inspectors were not able come on site, on the two most recent inspections from the USDA;

Three or more different lower-level violations, called 'indirect violations,' on the most recent USDA report; and

One or more recurring lower-level violation on the most recent USDA report.

The proposal will be heard in the government operations committee May 7 in Hauppauge.