writing project and need a sample draft to help me learn.
read the document i send.
Requirements: around 4-6pages
Advocacy Project Organization
INTRODUCTION
–state the problem, discuss details, setup the solutions,
-thesis = your best solutions/plan of action
HISTORY aka LITERATURE REVIEW – 1-2 paragraphs
–summary of how, when, and why the problem became what it is today
PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS
–has anyone tried to solve this problem with laws, policies, educational programs, media campaigns?
–why haven’t these worked?
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS – optional
–are there solutions that sound great but are probably not feasible or economical in some way, but may be options for the future?
-what are the strengths and weaknesses of these possible solution
PLAN OF ACTION – at least 4-6 pages – this is, afterall, what you are avocating
Long term and short term goals
3-point plan – law and or policy development – state or federal or international (you need the language of law/policy to suggest a change
Educational plan – for specific grades and how it can be implemented, or advocacy group can address cultural issues and teach the truth
Media campaigns – work with advocacy groups, PSA’s, social media, posters?
Everything you have in your plan of action needs to be feasible and reasonable.
If your problem is controversial, remember to also discuss ways of bringing the two sides closer together
Opposition – no section heading
–These are people who either a) don’t think the problem is important enough to put money into, b) think it’s just way too expensive, and or c) don’t really care at all about the problem
–Convince them that it’s worth it, make them care.
–refuting the opposition can happen throughout the plan of action if you wish (for example, you could discuss obstacles to the policy changes and refute them where you talk about policy changes instead of in a separate paragraph at the end of your plan of action.
CONCLUSION
–talk about what else is important to know about this problem that you haven’t been able to find answers to
—suggest further research to help with the problem in the future
–offer the worst-case scenario of what will happen if the problem is never solved
Deborah Park
Keeler
Writing 39C: Advocacy Project
March 17, 2017
Surfacing the Hidden Sport of Dogfighting
In 2007, The Humane Society of the United States estimated the approximate number of dogs placed in fighting pits nationwide to be 250,000, resulting in about 40,000 people a part of organized dogfighting and 100,000 involved in street-level fights. More than professionally organized fights, street fighters and street dogfights have been increasing, changing the foundation of dogfighting to a more “urban, open, and a daily concern to the citizens in many communities” (Lockwood 5). There isn’t a standard or national definition for such a complex bloodsport that can be seen from the perspective of the dogfighters, the endangered public, those charged with law enforcement and the abused dogs (Linda Kalof & Carl Taylor 320). In general, “the crime consists of owning, possessing, keeping, or training dogs with the intent to engage in an exhibition of fighting the dog with another animal for amusement or gain, or permit such acts on premises under one’s personal control” (Randall Lockwood 5). Dogfighting is illegal in all 50 states of America, however the laws aren’t being upheld for it is still practiced, mostly underground. Solutions to put an end to dogfighting are to enforce longer sentences and higher charges on the dogfighters along with the
breeders/sellers of the dogs being fought, making ex-dogfighters help with the rescued dogs’ rehabilitation as a method of reformation, police academy training pedagogy partnered with established advocacy groups, and media campaigns that coincide with reward programs.
Dogs have been bred over centuries and pit-bulls, which were initially bred to be working dogs and family pets, are the most commonly used dog for dogfighting. Pit-bulls were once called “nursemaid’s dogs” because of its friendliness and loyalty especially towards children, which categorized them to be good family dogs (Silverman 2). People began to intentionally breed dogs distinctively for aggressive behavior. As these dogs are cruelly trained and conditioned through different means of isolation, heavy chains, and other tactics, they are essentially being prepared to fight an opposing dog until one can no longer stand to fight. For the fortunate dogs that are in a state to be rescued after a fight, they are brought to shelters and urgent cares to be treated. However, from the injections, multiple breeding, cruel practices before the fight, including the condition it’s found in with open wounds, severe bites, various infections, many of them are euthanized. It is estimated that about 75% of municipal shelters euthanize pit bulls when taken in. John Goodwin of the Human Society of USA estimates that about 4 million dogs in shelters are euthanized each year (Yilmaz 222). There is a need and urgency to advocate for a ‘no-toleration’ mentality on dogfighting.
This cultural and social awareness of dogfighting started to arise through the media portraying the reality and seriousness of the illegal practice. In particular, the arrest of the NFL quarterback, Michael Vick, was a main component of raising awareness to the brutality of dogfighting. It launched an exponentially growing public pressure on law enforcement to find a resolution and act in response (Lockwood 4). Although dogfighting existed in the early 19th
century taking a different form, called bull-baiting, this problem reached the grounds of America in 1817. It became quickly embedded into American culture and continued spreading even after dogfighting became illegal in most states by the 1860s. Dogfighting remained prevalent throughout the United States, with a run in the 1930s and 1940s when this issue began to operate undergrounds. A previous attempt to solve this issue begins with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) of 1966 that became the accepted minimum standard required for animal treatment and well-being. The fault of this federal law for dogfighting is that there is no record for each dogfight or the training phases that can be fined for. Dogfighting is not so much of an organized and professional practice, but it’s heavily present in backyards, garages, and neighborhood corners. As of 2009, dogfighting is a felony in all states (Lockwood 7). However, dogfighting evolved to become a “gateway crime” for drug trafficking, money laundering, gambling, and violence that can potentially outbreak into a homicide. For these reasons, the fines don’t scare or pressure the dogfighters to stop. Gibson states that, “In fact, the average dog fight could easily net more money than an armed robbery, or a series of isolated drug transactions.” The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007 amends the AWA to impose a fine and prison term of up to 3 years for violating the AWA and a maximum fine of $250,000.
The first and most important solution to stop the spread of dogfighting is to place higher charges and longer sentences on the dogfighters that are caught. It is to input a federal law that places a minimum requirement of 10 years in prison and a fine that starts at a minimum of $100,000. Investigations should be taken into action immediately after dogfighting suspicion
and charges should be placed on the perpetrators quickly and intensively. There are different state dogfighting statutes for punishment for keeping fighting dog/instigating, of maximum fine for keeping/instigating, and for spectator provision (Gibson 2014). For example, in the chart that lists state laws concerning dogfighting, California’s punishment for this felony is imprisonment of 16 months or 2-3 years, with a maximum fine of $50,000, and “an offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail up to 1 year, or by a fine not to exceed $5,000, or by both” (Gibson). The strongest animal protection laws for dogfighting is in the state of Illinois, which considers it a class 3 felony and may be fined up to $50,000. For multiple years in a row, Kentucky is known to be the most lenient within the bottom tier. Dogfighting is categorized as a class D felony and spectator provision as a class A misdemeanor. In “FBI Case Results In Harshest Dog Fighting Penalty Ever” written in 2014, Melissa Cronin states that statements generally range from two months to eight years – the longest sentence ever handed down for a federal dog fighting case. The issue with the current dogfighting laws is that they are inconsistent and they highly vary depending on each dogfight and within each state. This doesn’t set a steady foundation for enforcing these laws. Money is also a key component to dogfights. According to the ASPCA, large and major dogfight raids have resulted in seizures of more than $500,000. This is due to the sale of pups, illegal drugs, and
intense gambling involved. ASPCA states that it is not unusual for $20,000 – $30,000 to change hands in a single fight. When such high amounts of money is at stake, the fines placed on these dogfighters don’t seem to pressure or jeopardize them. The increase in sentences and charges is needed to alert people that this criminal act is a consequential felony and put a hesitation to their actions. Once people are convicted of dogfighting, a crucial step afterwards is implementing a deeper investigation that looks into the breeders and sellers that were involved. This emphasis of prosecution on these contributors tackle the entirety of the processes that coincide to make up what dogfighting is. A fine of $50,000, the maximum fine on the most strict state laws, can be placed on the breeders and sellers. Focusing some attention on the non-dogfighters, the ones who allow dogfighting to exist, can help stop the spread of more fighting dogs. If a breeder were to be identified and fined, it can potentially stop a number of dogfights if the breeder/seller was the source of multiple dogs for multiple fighters. Increasing the weight of the consequences is not only an effective way, but the immediate step needed to show exponential decreases of dogfighting.
Another step in solving the issue is to provide dogfighters’ rehabilitation. This solution would be targeting the executors of dogfights by placing the dogfighters / ex-dogfighters back into places they were once involved in. Once caught and fined, they would be required to volunteer at shelters helping dogs rehabilitate and work closely with advocacy rescue groups for a year. As the ex-dogfighters would “shadow” the advocacy rescue groups, it would result in a highly advantageous, effective, and organized investigations. They would know exactly where to go to spot dogfights, when to intervene and take action to avoid disrupting the violent scene, and how to carry out the investigation to gain the most information. Being put into a situation that
they created can cause a huge opportunity for reflection and recovery from their own minds that tolerated such a cruel practice. This is rather a long-term process in which the ex-dogfighters can become the greatest influencers to other fighters through convincing them of the seriousness of the results of their wrongdoings. Dogfighters may tolerate what they do based on their limited knowledge and lack of sympathy, but their mindsets can be altered through first-hand experiences with the dogfighting cases and dogs’ rehabilitation process. As they are persuaded out of the very thing they did by seeing the effects and different points of view of dogfighting, they can be the culture-setters of a ‘no tolerance’ mentality on dogfighting because they would have a more powerful say than the advocacy groups. Another aspect to this solution is the increase in help at shelters with dogs’ rehabilitation. Ex-dogfighters can assist on taking measures of re-homing these dogs. According to Save-A-Bull’s joint efforts, research estimates that only one in 600 pit bulls born will be able to find a loving forever-home. Less than 5% of the severely injured dogs will be able to receive successful physical, mental, and behavioral re-training. It’s essential for many services and equipped hands to help this process play out and to ensure they don’t get trapped into dogfighting again. All to say, there needs to be a new law created that places a minimum of one year on the ex-dogfighters to devote their time, service, and intelligence to help with dogfighting cases’ investigations and the recovery of the aggressive, injured dogs.
A third solution to dogfighting is to develop a strong partnership between the police and advocacy rescue groups. Larger groups, such as ASPCA and HSUS, should incorporate an educational segment into the police academy training pedagogy. Law enforcement officers believe dogfighting is a serious crime, but according to ASPCA, only a quarter or less of them can agree that they have the necessary resources, training, and understanding to effectively investigate dogfighting cases in communities. In 2015, a survey presented by ASPCA showed that half of the 503 law enforcement officers that participated experienced dogfighting at least once during their job. However, 52% reported that they had no direct, specialized training in dogfighting cases with 40% saying the lack of resources can hinder investigations in their departments. Although groups like ASPCA and Humane Society of the United States have given anti-dogfighting training to some law enforcement departments, there should be an increase in their collaboration. Instituting a segment into the police training would teach the law enforcement officers how to identify dogfighting and how to respond. A method to implement this educational program would be with multiple informational sessions presented by experts from advocacy groups, and to also have field work practice. By this, the police would use their authority by enforcing laws, but in a sense they would be following the rescue group’s lead. As the two collaborate and tackle cases together, the police would gain experience and knowledge as the advocates guide them in different cautionary measures. It
should be mandatory for law enforcement officers to be assisted in real-life dogfighting cases and investigations by those who have the resources and expertise. Similar to the previous solution, this step of action can greatly improve the way dogfighting scenes are handled; They can begin to be handled with urgency, efficiency, and full comprehension of the situation.
The final solution to the problem of dogfighting would be to aim for change through the communities. This step would necessitate influential media campaigns and reward programs integrated into neighborhoods. According to Animal Legal and Historical Center, dogfighting “has reached epidemic proportions in all urban communities and continues to thrive in many rural areas as well” (Gibson). Dogfighting is recorded to be mostly in urbanized areas, specifically high crime urban neighborhoods. There are dogfighting subcultures depending on the large regionally cultures of urban and rural areas. The prevalence of dogfighting is extremely high in urban communities because it’s quite easy to attain fighting dogs for a few hundred dollars, breed their own dogs, and steal them (Gibson). It’s crucial for the community members to be able to identify signs of dogfighting when they’re in the vicinities of the garages, basements, or abandoned buildings, which is where dogfighting usually occurs in urban areas. A way of media campaigning is through video documentaries that use tactics to grab a hold of the communities’ attentions. Previous athletes or celebrities that were caught for dogfighting, such as the former Dallas Cowboys lineman Nate Newton, Michael Vick, and Jay-Z, can be featured on these films to captivate the audience with their high social status and profile. In addition, knowing the neighborhoods that have high changes of this crime to happen, posters and visible billboards that are funded by advocacy rescue groups need to be put up. The two different types of posters that can be put up throughout neighborhoods are warning posters and incentive posters
that publicize reward programs. Warning posters should consist of information that can help track down dogfighting, such as pit bull(s) roaming around a worn-down house, heavy chains and other tools used for the purpose of training, breading sticks found at abandoned areas which is used to break up a fight, “scratch lines” on the bottom of fighting pits, usually an enclosed space of about 20 square feet, or any suspicious, aggressive behavior between an owner and a dog. These identifications are likely to be found in areas where dogfighting can be more suited and successful: high crime and poverty stricken areas. As a result, reward programs can be quickly effective because of the motivation and urgency the people will feel. This was attempted by the HSUS by creating a reward system of $5,000 for any information leading to a conviction of illegal dogfighting. To improve this solution would be to higher incentives depending on the rates of dogfighting in each neighborhood, mostly the poor ghetto environments. Another change to this step of action would be to require more reward programs funded by large advocacy rescue groups in multiple urban areas. Although at first, it may seem like a lot of money is offered for simply reported information, this can potentially stop dogfighting through greater police involvement. When people start to report more of what they already know and see,
police officers will have to be more present, then on patrol more frequently in return.
The consistent and devastating issue of dogfighting is one of undeniable brutality towards dogs and a further ground space for illegal drug use and sale, gambling, and violence. Despite the extreme complexity of this underground crime, it’s essential that effective steps are made to surface the details and entirety of what dogfighting entails. Through different cases that brought the general public’s attention to some extent and the continuous rise of dogfighting, people are beginning to be more aware of the existence of it and the criticality of administering solutions. I advocate for solutions that essentially aim to establish humane and moral treatment of dogs, especially towards the pit bulls, and for a goal to lessen crime rates in potential dogfighting environments. Having said this, the first and most pivotal initiation is to set stricter and consistent regulations across the states through a federal law. By applying immense pressure on the dogfighters, it can cause a rapid decrease in the desires of practicing dogfighting. Still, dogfighting may exist, so the local police need to be adequately trained and taught by expert rescue groups on how to handle cases. As law enforcements’ involvement increases and dogfighters are caught, ex-fighters can be reformed by being placed into the centers of heavy dogfighting and experiencing dogfighting in a different light. Communities are crucial to enforcing these solutions, which is why the final, but critical resolutions are implementing media campaigns and reward programs. With these solutions and a fast-paced execution process, dogfighting, a nationwide problem, can potentially be put to an end.
Works Cited
Banerjee, Proshanti. “The Harm Principle at Play: How the Animal Welfare Act Fails to Protect Animal Adequately.” University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender &
Class. Vol. 15 Issue 2, p361-385. 2015
Cronin, Melissa. “FBI Case Results In Harshest Dog Fighting Penalty Ever.” The Dodo – For Animal People. 14 Nov. 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.
“Dogfighting Fact Sheet (Including Sample Letter to Law Enforcement Agencies).” Petfinder. Humane Society of the United States, n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.
“End Dogfighting.” The Human Society of the United States. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.
Farris, Meg. “Ex-dogfighter Now Cares for Dogs He Trained.” WWL. 19 Sept. 2016. Web. 28 Feb. 2017.
Gibson, Hanna. “A Brief Summary of Dog Fighting Laws.” Animal Law Legal Center. Michigan State University College of Law, 2005. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.
Gibson, Hanna. “Chart of State Dogfighting Laws.” Animal Law Legal Center. Michigan State University College of Law, 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.
Gibson, Hanna. “Detailed Discussion of Dogfighting.” Animal Law Legal Center. Michigan State University College of Law, 2005. Web. 12 March. 2017.
Greenwood, Arin. “Dog Fighting Is A Huge Problem, And Many Cops Agree We Need To Do More About It.” TheHuffingtonPost.com, 07 Apr. 2015. Web. 28 Feb. 2017.
“H.R. 137 — 110th Congress: Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007.” www.GovTrack.us. 2007. March 8, 2017 < hr137>
Johnson, Olivia. “Dog Fighting and the Growing Social Epidemic of Animal Cruelty.” The Journal of Law Enforcement Vol. 3. Issue 3: 1-9. Print.
Kalof, Linda, and Carl Taylor. “The Discourse of Dog Fighting.” Humanity and Society Vol. 31 (2007): 319-333. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.
Lockwood, Randall, Ph.D. “Dogfighting: A Guide for Community Action.” ASPCA & COPS Office, Nov. 2012. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.
“Pit Bulls and Euthanasia Rates.” Save-a-Bull Rescue. 12 Nov. 2015. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.
Silverman, Jacob. “How Dogfighting Works” 27 July 2007. HowStuffWorks.com.
“The HSUS Launches National Animal Fighting Tip Line.” RSS. The Humane Society of the United States, 14 July 2009. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.
Thornton, Kim Campbell. “5 Worst States to Be an Animal: Abuse Laws Lax.” NBCNews.com. NBCUniversal News Group, 03 Feb. 2010. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.
Tischler, Joyce. “A Brief History of Animal Law, Part II (1985 – 2011).” Stanford Journal of Animal Law and Policy Vol. 5 (2012): 36-37, 57-59. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.
Yilmaz, Orhan & Fusun Coskun & Mehmet Ertugrul. Research Opinions in Animal & Veterinary Sciences. 2015, “Dog fighting: a nasty work.”Vol. 5 Issue 5, p219-223.
Sarah Ahn
Peter Cibula III
Writing 39C
15 May 2015
Clearly superior sample. Nearly every claim has evidence, and often from various and well-used sources. The multimodal elements are all very well-used – even from the starting image below that grabs the reader’s attention in a nice appeal. Really, I can’t think of a better AP I’d like to receive. While on the long-side, I feel the length simply serves to account for the author’s grappling with the nuance of the problem of puppy mills – the issues both in enforcement and the demand for puppies. Therefore, rather than sell one of the elements of the “solution” as a magic bullet, the author makes it clear that many elements are needed, before anticipating counter-claims. There’s not much else to say – it’s a great paper. – PC
Curbing and Bettering Puppy Mills
The whimsical puppies one may see at the windowsill of a puppy store may be completely unaware of where exactly these puppies originated. The sticker on the small, compact window of where these puppies prance around may read something like, “USDA Licensed Breeder from East Earl, PA”. Little do these potential four legged owners know that this licensed breeder is more than likely running a massive puppy mill. Until this day, there is not a standard and official definition of a puppy mill, but in general, a puppy mill is an establishment that breeds puppies for sale typically in inhumane and unethical ways. These U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) licensed puppy mills are required to abide by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) that ensures the humane treatment of these animals. Although the USDA puts the AWA in place in order to regulate these puppy mills, the inspections performed by the programs under the USDA have proven to be weak and ineffective—allowing these large-scale breeders of these puppy mills to easily swivel through the loopholes of the AWA. The problem behind these puppy mills ultimately underlies within the Animal Welfare Act– as it is far too broad and ineffective at specifically targeting these nationwide puppy mills. In order to effectively combat these puppy mills, I advocate for the states to enact laws that regulate these puppy mills, rather than the federal government, in addition to local ordinances that ban the sale of puppies from puppy mills that have violated any state and federal laws.
Currently, the USDA inadequately “enforces” the Animal Welfare Act and has made it nearly ineffective upon the puppy mills. The USDA allows the existence of puppy mills as long as these licensed facilities abide to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) which is the only federal law in the United States “that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers” (“Animal Welfare Act”). The USDA ensures that these puppy mill business owners are abiding by the AWA by inspecting these facilities at least once a year through the Animal Care Unit (AC), a program under the USDA that is responsible for animal inspections. The problem exists within the AC’s inspections of these puppy mills. Many of these violators who operate these inhumane puppy mills are not cited for their violations but are simply just “slapped on the wrist” with insignificant warnings and no misdemeanors. Katherine C. Tushaus, a JD graduate from the Drake University Law School, agrees with the inconsistent enforcement mechanisms behind the AWA in the Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, as she stated, “…penalties were often so low that violators regarded them as a cost of doing business and… the agency accommodated facilities that repeatedly refused access to inspectors rather than suspending their licenses” (Tushaus). Many of these severe violations account for a variety of different abuses such as the health of the dogs and the environment these dogs live that is often contaminated with feces, viruses, and insects as pictured in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
In addition, when the USDA audited the AC in 2010, the audit gave proof to numerous violations that were not taken seriously. In most cases, many of these gruesome violations were cited as an indirect or a minimal violation that entailed no follow-ups (U.S. Department of Agriculture). As seen in Figure 4, 71% of these AC inspectors took no action against the violations and loathed away from the other appropriate options that would require follow-ups. Although there is no certainty as to why such decisions were made, may it be due to negligence or inadequate funding, it is certain that the AWA lacks enforcement. Katherine Tushaus, who was mentioned earlier, agrees with this notion as she explained that “the agency lacks a sufficient number of personnel to inspect the thousands of facilities scattered across the country that are covered by the Animal Welfare Act [because the] Animal Welfare Act encompasses a large range of facilities that deal with and house animals, most of which do not participate in commercial breeding practices” (Tushaus). The federal government fails to properly enforce the AWA because the AWA is too broad and weak to combat the numerous puppy mills that exist all through out our nation.
Due to the lack of enforcement from the federal government, states and local ordinances should combat these puppy mills because they have greater powers that can specifically target the issues behind puppy mills. Through the U.S. Constitution and Federalism, states have more power to enact higher standards amongst these puppy mills than the minimal requirements of the federal government. Currently, by the federal standards, there are only about 100 inspectors that are responsible to do more than 15,000 inspections per year – a clear indication that there are not enough inspectors and inspections (Madrigal). By giving the power and responsibility to the states to regulate and inspect these puppy mills, the states are enabled to control these puppy mills in a more intimate way because many of these inspectors would not be responsible for such a mass amount. Sandra Jones, a J.D. graduate from Rutgers University, mentioned in Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy that there is a clear, inadequate enforcement of the AWA and further propagates her argument by asserting the need for states to get involved. Jones mentioned that these state laws “…have made major efforts to improve the animal cruelty laws in their jurisdictions” and supports the idea of giving the states the power to regulate these puppy mills because these new laws “provide clear authority” (Jones). Over half the states have adopted this mentality, as 29 states have currently enacted some sort of puppy mill law. Many of these puppy mill laws are not uniform however, as some laws are more rigid and strict than others. Robyn F. Katz, an attorney for an animal welfare nonprofit in Washington, points out in Michigan State University’s Journal of College of Law the state laws variability, as he mentioned, “States laws vary, but most states that do have laws address sanitation, housing, food and water requirements, the governing agency, and inspections; few address veterinary care and the humane treatment of dogs, ventilation, and exercise” (Katz). This is indeed true, evidently shown in maps below; each state has different laws that have varying standards and degrees of regulation – some states do not have any laws, some states have laws without inspection while some do, etc. Despite this variability, one particular state stands out amongst the other states that regulate puppy mills that may serve as a “template” for other states – Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania, infamously known as one of the many states in the Midwest that runs puppy mills, arguably has the strictest puppy mill laws in the United States as of today. Despite its infamous title and reputation, Pennsylvania has been improving the issues behind puppy mills more so than the other popular Midwest states that are known to operate puppy mills (Staff, Associated Press). Under the Pennsylvania Dog Law, the puppy mill breeders are required to abide by these law provisions, which include but are not limited to: double cage sizes, eliminated wire flooring, provided unfettered access to the outdoors, banned cage stacking, instituted twice-a-year vet checks, and mandated new ventilation and cleanliness standards (“New Pa. Law Putting Puppy Mills out of Business”). In addition to these provisions, Rebecca F. Wisch, a J.D. graduate from Michigan State University, mentioned in Michigan State University’s Journal of College of Law that the state’s Bureau of Dog Enforcement “…mandates inspection of all licensed kennels at least twice a month” (Wisch). As shown in Table 5 below, Pennsylvania evidently holds the longest list of requirements behind their law.
Should any of these provisions be violated, the owner may face misdemeanor charges that cost up to $2000 plus court costs. This stringency and specificity behind this law has proven to be so successful that many Pennsylvania puppy mills have voluntarily shut down – reducing, “303 [puppy mills] to 111 [puppy mills] – a reduction of almost two-thirds” (“Staff, Associated Press”). Thus, the Pennsylvania Dog Law serves as a paramount example of how impactful and influential a state law can be in fighting these inhumane puppy mills. Whether or not the other states currently have laws concerning puppy mills, these states should take advantage of their power and use the Pennsylvania Dog Law as a template to enact their own puppy mill laws to enforce higher standards than the bare minimums of the federal government. In addition, Melissa Towsey, a graduate law student from the University of Villanova, credited Pennsylvania’s Dog Law as a “…pioneering legislation for the humane treatment of kennel dogs” in the Villanova Environmental Law Journal (Towsey). Indeed, the Pennsylvania Dog Law can truly serve as a catalyst and initiator to other states to enact similar laws that may be even better than Pennsylvania’s law itself. In addition to this law, all state inspectors should be highly trained and held accountable for their inspections by setting a reported “quota” or a “target goal” of reported violations to ensure that the inspectors are doing their job. In other words, states should independently formulate a minimum and appropriate amount of violations that need to be reported by the inspectors. By setting an “X” amount of violations that need to be reported, inspectors would not take the chance of simply “slapping the wrists” of the violators because they would be held accountable to report a certain amount. With these strict laws that have numerous requirements inspired by the Pennsylvania Dog Law, along with the accountability of the inspectors, states’ bureau inspectors would be able to regulate and inspect with more adequacy and stringency of these inhumane puppy mills more so than the federal government’s AC inspectors, in addition to possibly shutting down puppy mills that can not accommodate to the necessary requirements.
The states enacting puppy mill laws definitely address the inspection issue, but adding in local ordinances can further limit and possibly impede the profiting businesses of these puppy mills. Local ordinances conducted by the cities are vital to fighting puppy mills because they play a crucial role in changing the public and governmental perceptions on moral issues. According to Adam Fumarola, an attorney graduate from University at Buffalo Law School, “Pet stores [are] the leading distributor of puppy mill animals” (Fumerola). This claim is generally true as most pet stores purchase their dogs from puppy mills because they are much cheaper and easy to access (“Puppy Mill FAQ”). By doing so, the puppy stores are creating profit for these puppy mill businesses. Therefore, because puppy stores are the main source of profit to many puppy mills, local ordinances should regulate puppy stores to further curb the businesses of puppy mills. These ordinances should prohibit retail stores from purchasing puppies from puppy mills that have numerously violated the Animal Welfare Act and any additional state laws. Krysten Kenny, a JD graduate from Albany Law School, agrees with this proposal in the Albany Law Review, as she argued, “By cutting off the ability of retail pet stores to sell their live products, these ordinances aim to curtail the demand for puppy mill dogs…” (Kenny). This ensures that any puppy mill facility that is inhumane and unethical will eventually run out of business because many puppy stores would reject buying puppies from them. This sort of ordinance has already been enacted successfully in cities like New York City. In January of 2015, New York City’s Mayor, Bill de Blasio passed a groundbreaking ordinance and created a law that “prohibits [retail stores] from buying puppies from commercial puppy brokers or from USDA-licensed breeders with severe Animal Welfare Act violations” (“Law Enacted to Prohibit Sale of Puppy”). Many animal advocates, as seen in the picture below of an advocate supporting Mayor de Blasio, hailed at this new victory of such law. Furthermore, many local ordinances concerning puppy mills and retail pet stores have recently been passing as more of the cities’ public is becoming more aware of where these puppies are originating from. Popular
celebrity figures like Oprah Winfrey, pictured above, and Lea Michele have brought immense amount of attention to these unethical puppy mills that have affected both the state and local cities. Lea Michele, for example, prompted New York to pass stricter state laws that regulate puppy mills quite recently. In the letter seen above, Michele was successfully able to gather enough public attention to further enhance the puppy mills laws in the state of New York.
Sandra Jones mentions that such public educational efforts from Oprah Winfrey, and in general, any influential person, were the “…beginning for anti-puppy mill spokespeople such as ASPCA attorney Cori Menkin, Bill Smith of MLAR, and attorney Buzz Miller, [to begin] speaking at state-wide seminars and alerting the public to problem of puppy mills” (Jones). In effect, many of the locals’ public have become aware of this issue and have passed numerous, successful local ordinances successfully after much recent media coverage. Nearly 80 cities as of today have successfully enacted laws that prohibit the sale of puppies (and possibly any additional animals) that originated from inhumane puppy mills in retail stores, as seen below in Figure 6.
In the case of New York City, the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) enforces this local ordinance (seen in Figure 7) with yearly inspections and regulatory compliance of all New York City pet shops (“NYC”). The DOHMH can revoke, fine, and shut down any noncompliant pet stores (“New York City”). Similarly, big cities have departments that regulate these businesses, while some small cities’ police department regulates these pet stores.
This progression and popularity of local ordinances that serve to end puppy mills gives hope to ending the overall entirety of puppy mills because, as Kenny mentions, “decreasing the supply [of puppies] results in consumers turning to more humane places to get a new companion such as shelters, rescue groups, or small-scale breeders” (Kenny). Not only will the public be making better decisions as to where they should adopt or purchase a puppy, they will also be more informed and educated about the existence of puppy mills. Strict state laws are undeniably necessary to investigate the puppy mills, but in addition to that, communities must pass local ordinances that ensure that these puppy mill businesses do not further succeed and flourish.
My solutions of having the states pass strict laws inspired by the Pennsylvania Dog Law and having local ordinances that regulates puppy stores may raise some complications and controversy. First and foremost, some would argue to simply ban the existence of puppy mills and to prohibit all sales of puppies, despite their origins, in all pet stores. Although this is completely ideal, as it would completely terminate all puppy mills, it is neither merely logical nor practical due to the Commerce Clause that protects interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause is a constitutional right that “precludes states from enacting laws or regulations that excessively burden interstate commerce” (“Rousso v. State”). Thus, the government cannot simply ban puppy mill businesses, but can only regulate them with the Animal Welfare Act and possibly with existing state laws. In addition, local ordinances cannot simply prohibit all sales of puppies to puppy storeowners, as they would argue that not all puppies come from puppy mills, and thereby, such prohibition would be technically unconstitutional. Certain cities like Phoenix, Arizona have passed local ordinances that have completely ban the sale of puppies in retail stores, but have created a lot of conflict in return. For instance, in a recent court case in July of 2014, Phoenix pet storeowners argued that they did not purchase puppies from inhumane puppy mills, but rather, bought their puppies from regulated, humane breeders, arguing that this ban was completely unfair as it targeted innocent owners (“New PA Law”). In addition to that argument, Tucson Vice Mayor Steve Kozachik, pictured above, stated, “This ordinance says you can’t sell animals that come from a breeder. Period. – Not you can’t sell from inhumane breeders – I would agree with that, but that’s not in here” (“New Paw Law”). Thus, this is why I advocate for a lesser of a radical solution by mandating all states to inspect these puppy mills precisely since they are constitutionally allowed to exist, in addition to the prohibition of the sale of puppies that have come from severely violated puppy mills, rather than a complete prohibition.
I also acknowledge the fact that if the USDA is unable to regulate the Animal Welfare Act, it may as very well be the same within the states, should they have a puppy mill law. Rebecca Wisch, mentioned earlier, stated, “While new [state] laws certainly reflect a step forward in curbing the problem of puppy mills, critics contend that many of these laws do not go far enough. In fact, one of the main deficiencies in most of the new and existing laws is the lack of adequate inspection systems that ensure compliance” (Wisch). This is definitely plausible, as I do admit that this has already occurred throughout some states, and it is certainly an additional problem to my advocated solution. However, despite this setback, that is precisely why I additionally advocated for accountability to those state inspectors. Currently, no states that have puppy mill laws have some sort of accountability measure upon the inspectors. If this were hypothetically enforced, with the use of violation “quotas”, inspectors would be held more responsible and accountable to report violations and follow-up on those puppy mills; otherwise they would be punished with their own penalties for not conducting an inspection properly. In addition to that, unlike the Animal Care Unit (inspectors from the USDA) that is responsible for the entire nation’s puppy mills, states would inspect a much lesser amount, allowing them to inspect in a magnified way. Thus, it would be the states’ responsibilities to fix that weakness and to not further parallel with the weaknesses of the USDA.
Thirdly, critics may argue for an amendment of the Animal Welfare Act that would make the act much more stronger and effective, rather than mandating the states to enact a puppy mill law. This provision has already occurred, as Katherine C. Tushaus recalls, “In the mid-September 2008, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS) was introduced in both the House and Senate. PUPS aims to amend the Animal Welfare Act to require commercial breeders who produce more than fifty dogs a year and sell directly to the public to be licensed and inspected by the USDA… The PUPS bill is a step towards strengthening the federal regulation of commercial breeders…” (Tushaus). Despite its simplicity, the PUPS Bill showed to be ineffective with its federal regulation and inspections as seen through USDA’s 2010 audit. The practicality of the bill fails to be effective because the USDA is far too broad and large to specifically combat all of the nation’s puppy mills, as they are responsible for almost the entire spectrum of animal treatment. Due to this problem, many loopholes continue to exist despite its numerous amendments. Robert F. Katz agrees with this issue as he mentioned, “…It would be impossible for the USDA to monitor all of the commercial breeding operations. The primary authority to regulate the welfare of animals is through the states, which need to maintain laws that are enforceable and hold people accountable for violating the current laws” (Katz). Thus, if we give this issue to the states, states can work in a specific manner to rightfully regulate and inspect these puppy mills with higher standards since they carry that power. States like Pennsylvania have a Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement that ensures these laws are being enforced while the USDA does not. Surely, should we have effective Bureaus that work together to enforce puppy mill laws in all states, puppy mills can possibly be corrected.
The problems that exist within these puppy mills are undeniably complicated and extremely complex. However, despite this complexity, it is pivotal for the public to become aware of this nationwide issue in order to be able to enact proposed solutions. Thankfully, due to increased amounts of media coverage, the public is slowly, but surely, becoming more aware of the problems that exists in these puppy mills. I advocate for solutions that address the problem in multiple ways – ensuring that the treatment of these dogs are ethical, humane, and more than just minimally acceptable. The states will be able to regulate the inspection in a more intimate and magnified way that ensures that the puppy mill owners are not treating their animals in inhumane ways. By adding accountability to these inspectors, these inspectors would be more motivated to perform their inspections righteously. In the meantime, local cities should fight to end the sale of puppies that originated from violating puppy mills, which would cut out a lot of these puppy mill businesses. If the local ordinances were not passed, at least there could be another potential solution within the states that helps better the treatment of the dogs in the puppy mills. Likewise, if state laws are not passed, at least there could be local ordinances that decrease the supply of puppies from puppy mills. With these solutions and the USDA’s regulations, the loopholes that exist within these puppy mills may cease to exist.
Works Cited
“Animal Welfare Act.” Animal Welfare Act. USDA, 26 May 2015. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.
ASPCA. “Puppy Mills Map”. 2015. N.p. Web. 22 May 2015.
This visual map created by the ASPCA was used to show the current puppy mills laws
some states have as compared to the states that do not have it. The differing shades of
colors indicate the degrees of the puppy mill laws. This map was used to give a visual
representation of current state puppy mill laws.
ASPCA. “State Puppy Mill Chart”. 2015. N.p. Web. 23 May 2015
This up to date chart provided by ASPCA lists all the states and their current puppy mill
laws. I chose to use a snippet of that by picturing Pennsylvania’s laws to further
emphasize their stringent and strict laws that are among the strongest in the nation – as
indicated by the KEY in the chart.
AZ Central. Phoenix’s Attempt to Curb Puppy Mills Challenged. 2014. Web. 17 May 2015.
AZ Central, an American daily and local news page for Arizona, featured a video clip of
a controversial debate between animal advocates and owners of pet stores. This clip was
used in my Advocacy Project because it mentioned key points of my counter argument. It
used credible sources like the Mayor’s argument along with actual store breeders and
animal advocates of Phoenix – as it was recorded from a court hearing.
Best Friends Animal Society. “Jurisdictions with Retail Pet Sale Bans”. 2015. N.p. Web. 22 May
2015.
This up to date chart provided by Best Friends Animal Society listed all the current cities
that ban the sale of puppies and to which degree by linking the actual documented
ordinance. This chart was used in my Advocacy Project because it created a visual
representation of how effective local ordinances can be as far as how puppy mills are
concerned.
Companion Animal Protection Society. New York City Ordinance 55. 2014. N.p. Web. 22 May
2015.
This chart provides a detailed explanation of New York City’s puppy mill ordinance. It
explicitly explains the conditions of the prohibition of selling puppies that originated
from puppy mills. This was used in my Advocacy Project to further explain and support
the effect of the local ordinance that I advocated for.
Fumarola, Adam J. “With Best Friends Like Us Who Needs Enemies? The Phenomenon of the
Puppy Mill, the Failure of Legal Regimes to Manage It, and the Positive Prospects of
Animal Rights.” Buffalo Environmental Law Journal (1999): n. pag. Print.
Adam Fumarola, an attorney graduate from University at Buffalo Law School, discusses
in the Buffalo Environmental Law Journal about the basic issues behind puppy mills. He
explains the inhumane treatment that exists within puppy mills along with the supplying
markets of those puppies born form those puppy mills. This scholarly journal was used in
my Advocacy Project because it explained the basic process and business behind puppy
mills and puppy stores.
The Humane Society. “Lea Michele’s Letter”. 2014. New York City. Web. 22 May 2015
The Humane Society. “Puppy Mills.” N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2015.
Katz, Robyn F. “Detailed Discussion of Commercial Breeders and Puppy Mills.” Detailed
Discussion of Commercial Breeders and Puppy Mills. Michigan State University
College of Law, 2008. Web. 05 May 2015.
Katz, Robyn F. “Laws Affecting Commercial Breeders and Puppy Mills.” Laws Affecting
Commercial Breeders and Puppy Mills. Michigan State University College of Law,
2008. Web. 05 May 2015.
Kenny, Krysten. “A LOCAL APPROACH TO A NATIONAL PROBLEM.” Albany Law
Review (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 12 Apr. 2015
Krysten Kenny, a JD graduate from Albany Law School, argues that federal regulations
are not adequate enough to regulate puppy mills, and therefore, advocates for local
ordinances to take action. Kenny supports two possible local ordinances that may halt
puppy mills: prohibition of the sale of animals in puppy stores or a change in retail price
in puppy stores. She looks into to the states and local cities to solve the issue because the
federal regulation is too broad and inadequate by explaining the possible effects.
Jones, Sandra K. “Dealing Dogs: Can We Strengthen Weak Laws in the Dog Industry?”
Dealing Dogs: Can We Strengthen Weak Laws in the Dog Industry? Rutgers Journal
of Law & Public Policy, 2010. Web. 05 May 2015.
Sandra K. Jones, a graduate student with a Law Degree from Rutgers University, argues
that the federal laws surrounding animal rights, specifically dogs, are archaic and lack the
fundamental protection for dogs. She discusses the loopholes in the Animal Welfare Act
along with the lack of enforcement by the Federal Government. Jones argues that there
are multiple ways in which we can combat this issue, which includes the states taking
initiative. Specifically, she mentions how Pennsylvania had passed the Pennsylvania Dog
Law that has shown significant improvement.
Laika Magazine. A Supporter of Bill De Blasio. 2013. New York City. Web. 22 May 2015.
“Law Enacted to Prohibit Sale of Puppy Mill Animals in New York City : The Humane Society
of the United States.” RSS. The Humane Society, 29 Jan. 2015. Web. 17 May 2015.
Madrigal, Juan. “The Controversy Behind Puppy Mills and Kitten Mills.” | EntirelyPets.
EntirelyPets, 9 Jan. 2014. Web. 17 May 2015.
“New Pa. Law Putting Puppy Mills out of Business.” CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 11 June 2010.
Web. 17 May 2015.
“New York City Council Passes Ordinance 55.” New York City Council Passes Ordinance 55.
CAPS, n.d. Web. 20 May 2015.
“NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DoHMH).” Business. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May
2015.
“Puppy Mill FAQ.” Fight Cruelty. ASPCA, n.d. Web. 23 May 2015.
“ROUSSO V. STATE.” 170 Wn.2d 70, ROUSSO V. STATE. En Banc, 27 May 2010. Web. 20
May 2015.
Staff, Associated Press Business. “New Pennsylvania Law Putting Puppy Mills out of Business.”
Advance Digital, 11 June 2010. Web. 22 May 2015.
Towsey, Melissa. “Something Stinks: The Need for Environmental Regulation of Puppy
Mills.” Something Stinks: The Need for Environmental Regulation of Puppy Mills.
Villanova University, 2010. Web. 05 May 2015.
Melissa Towsey, a graduate law student from the University of Villanova, primarily
focuses on the environmental effects of a puppy mills, but mentions the many effects of
puppy mills that do not just relate to the environment in the Villanova Environmental
Law Journal. She goes into detail about the loopholes that exists within the Animal
Welfare Act, and resorts to the states to fix this puppy mill problem. She supports
Pennsylvania Dog Law Act and claims it to be a comprehensive pioneering
legislation. This precisely related to my advocacy project
because it argues that current federal laws are inadequate, but gives hopes to state laws.
Tushaus, Katherine C., Don’t Buy the Doggy in the Window: Ending the Cycle that
Perpetuates Commercial Breeding With Regulation of the Retail Pet Industry,
Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, Volume 14, Number 3, Fall 2009, 501.
Katherine C. Tushaus, a JD graduate from the Drake University Law School, argues in
the Drake Journal of Agricultural Law that the current federal regulation of puppy mills is
inadequate because the Animal Welfare Act is too broad to be implemented upon puppy
mills. Tushaus argues for uniform regulation of puppy mills and also discusses the supply
and demand aspect of the pet industry.
U.S. Department of Agriculture . Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Animal Care Program Inspections of Problematic Dealers. Washington DC: USDA, 14 May2010.
Investigating Puppy Mills. Perf. Oprah Winfrey. The Oprah Winfrey Show, 2006.
Wisch, Rebecca F. “Overview of Recent Dog Breeding Laws (2010).” Overview of Recent
Dog Breeding Laws (2010). Michigan State University College of Law, 2010. Web.
05 May 2015.
Rebecca F. Wisch, a law graduate student from Michigan State University, overviews the
state laws that regulate puppy mills in Michigan State University’s Journal. She argues
that there is a lack of state and local funds but an increase of seriousness and awareness
of this puppy mill problem. She discusses the uniqueness of the Pennsylvania Puppy Mill
Law as it significantly stricter than other states. This related perfectly to my advocacy
project because it emphasized how strict laws like that of Pennsylvania is necessary in
order to regulate puppy mills.
We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.
Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.
1. Click on the “Place order tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.
3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.
Need this assignment or any other paper?
Click here and claim 25% off
Discount code SAVE25