Russo's PET Newport Beach ranked #7 largest puppy mill puppy supplier for ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Russo's PET Newport Beach ranked #7 

largest puppy mill puppy supplier for

ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Why San Francisco Should Outlaw Pet Sales

JUNE 30, 2011

Joseph Turner, Global Animal

A recent editorial published by The Los Angeles Times (see below) disapproves of the measure to ban animal sales in pet stores, while also poking fun at its fellow animal-conscious denizens from the north. The editorial focuses more on comparing the pet ban bill to other pieces of legislation rather than addressing the issue of animal cruelty.

While the article does raise concerns about the ballot measure, adopting pets from shelters and becoming more animal aware would remedy the editorial’s qualms about the initiative — nothing too insurmountable. Here’s why we think San Francisco’s getting it right.

According to the Humane Society, nearly 8 million cats and dogs find themselves in U.S. animal shelters each year. Only half of these would-be pets will avoid euthanasia. The raw numbers indicate we face an epidemic of pet homelessness. While the ratio of euthanized pets to pets in homes has drastically reduced since the 1970s, our goal, and duty, as a society should be to reach a point where no stray animals are destined to die. For all displaced pets to find homes, we need to force out those actively contributing to, and profiting from, the problem. Puppy mills act as one of the prime perpetrators because they endlessly breed dogs, in hopes of endless profits, and raise dogs in horrendous living conditions.

Luckily, the proactive, animal-conscious citizens in San Francisco have secured a spot on the November ballot for an initiative that will forbid pet stores from selling animals. Those supporting the measure hope animal cruelty will be lessened, as most animals sold in pet stores come from puppy mills and other unethical animal dealers.

With the drastic number of euthanized pets, the merciless puppy mill industry has no place in our society. Why should puppies be bred at a rapid pace when millions of pets don’t have homes? By reducing the number of pets in shelters, animal rescues might then have sufficient resources to better treat those animals in shelters. Further, more shelters will then be able to become no-kill.

Although some people have an affinity for a certain breed of dog, even they do not have to patronize pet stores since there are dog rescue organizations for every breed.

In addition to animal overpopulation, puppy mills produce dogs who typically have more health ailments than dogs not bred like a commodity. Poor health stems from inbreeding and atrocious living conditions. Unsurprisingly, these millers tend to skillfully evade investigators and try to see to that customers do not know that their new puppy came from a morbid mill.

San Francisco voters have the opportunity to stymie the puppy mill business. Rather than facing ridicule, San Francisco animal advocates should be praised for getting the pet ban onto the ballot. Moreover, the San Francisco law, if passed, may provide an impetus for further animal conscious practice throughout the region, the state, and the country.

When searching for a pet, you can both save a life today and prevent future lives from harm.

Here is The Los Angeles Times editorial:

Photo Credit: Justin Sullivan (Getty Images)

Los Angeles Times, Editorial

Honestly, it’s not that we go out of our way to razz San Francisco as the home of nutty ideas. It’s just that lately, the city has been making it hard to do otherwise, giving unexpectedly serious consideration to a series of odd proposals: The November ballot measure that would ban male circumcision of children, which isn’t expected to pass. The Happy Meal ban, which did pass. And now, the goldfish ban.

Actually, it’s not just a goldfish ban. The measure being pushed by San Francisco’s Animal Control and Welfare Commission would ban all sales of all pets: kittens, snakes, hamsters, goldfish. Rats!

The ban wouldn’t affect animals sold for food, so city residents could still buy a live crab to boil in a pot of water for dinner, just not to keep in an aquarium. Live tilapia to grill, no problem, but a splendidly colored Siamese fighting fish for a fishbowl?

This is a foolish proposal, and the Board of Supervisors should ignore it. Like the ban on free toys with low-nutrition children’s meals, the so-called goldfish ban originates from good intentions. It is intended as a blow against inhumane pet operations such as puppy mills. Also, the hope is that people seeking pets would turn instead to rescue societies and animal shelters.

Society rightly rejects — and passes laws against — the inhumane treatment of animals, though sometimes it has a muddled perception of what that means (as in the case of the crab). But San Francisco should reduce animal cruelty by getting rid of the cruelty, not the animals. The city lacks a mandatory spay-neuter law for most dogs and cats, like the one in Los Angeles; its law covers only pit bulls. A well-enforced ordinance of that sort would help keep shelters and rescue societies from being overwhelmed by unwanted animals. San Francisco also could require stores to acquire their animals from humane suppliers, and mandate a short waiting period before customers are allowed to purchase a pet, to avoid impulse buys.

Animals will be treated better when they are owned by responsible people who are ready to keep a pet for its lifetime. That means allowing people to buy the pet they want, not the one the city thinks they should have. Of course, prospective pet owners should check the shelters and rescue groups first; they would be surprised by the variety of loving, attractive animals. Ultimately, though, it’s their choice. Besides, should the ban pass, people need only go to a neighboring town to find just the right waggly-tailed, cuddly guppy.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-goldfish-20110629,0,7228584.story

UNITED STATES INSPECTOR GENERALS REPORT - MAY 2010 - USDA COMMERCIAL DOG BREEDING INDUSTRY - NEWPORT BEACH CITIZENS WANT BAN ON USDA PET STORE PUPPIES

UNITED STATES INSPECTOR GENERALS REPORT - 

MAY 2010 - USDA COMMERCIAL DOG BREEDING INDUSTRY - NEWPORT BEACH CITIZENS WANT BAN ON USDA PET STORE PUPPIES

documented case study: Oklahoma breeder with dogs infested with ticks.  Dog with ticks on face.

EXACT PHOTO--We found that 4 of the 19 inspectors incorrectly reported at least one direct violation as an indirect. After reviewing some of the examples, AC regional management responded that the inspectors may need additional training in identifying violations. Examples follow:
Example 1: At a breeder facility in Oklahoma with 96 adult dogs, we observed numerous dogs infested with ticks. One dog’s face was covered with ticks (see figure 5).42

Figure 5: Dog Covered with Feeding Ticks
The inspector required the breeder to take only eight of the infested dogs to a veterinarian. However, she did not identify the dogs in the inspection report or require documentation of the treatment. Therefore, we were not able to determine what happened to this dog.

The inspector reported the ticks as an indirect violation, even though excessive ticks are classified as a direct violation in AC’s Guide. The inspector told us that “without doing a physical exam on the dogs, it would be hard to tell exactly how detrimental the ticks were.” Even so, she reported that some of the dogs “have enough ticks to be concerned about their hematocrit [a red blood cell ratio indicating anemic conditions].”

When we showed figure 5 to a senior veterinarian at AC’s national office and the western regional director, they disagreed with the inspector’s judgment of the violation. Both stated that it should have been reported as a direct violation in the inspection report.

Several months later, we asked for the treatment records to determine if the tick-infested dogs had received appropriate care, since AC’s policy states that “every facility is expected to have a system of health records sufficiently comprehensive to demonstrate the delivery of adequatehealth care . . . [including] dates and other details of all treatments.”
The inspector told us she could not require the records because AC “cannot enforce policy” and current regulations do not require breeders to keep them.
We found that although AWA and AC regulations are silent on treatment records, they do require adequate veterinary care; without these records, the inspector cannot determine if a violator corrected the problem.
We also noted that this inspector had required such records at other facilities, as did other inspectors we travelled with.
Last, the inspector did not identify the specific animals in her inspection report. According to APHIS, the inspector documented and photographed the violation for enforcement action. However, we did not observe her taking any photos when we were there and she could not subsequently produce them. Without the documentation, it would be impossible to identify the animals during re-inspection to determine if they were treated or just disposed of.

UNITED STATES INSPECTOR GENERALS REPORT - MAY 2010 - USDA COMMERCIAL DOG BREEDING INDUSTRY - NEWPORT BEACH CITIZENS WANT BAN ON USDA PET STORE PUPPIES

UNITED STATES INSPECTOR GENERALS REPORT - 

MAY 2010 - USDA COMMERCIAL DOG BREEDING INDUSTRY - NEWPORT BEACH CITIZENS WANT BAN ON USDA PET STORE PUPPIES

documented case study: cleanliness

EXACT PHOTO-EXAMPLE 3: At a facility in Ohio with 88 adult dogs, AC cited the breeder for 23 violations (including 7 repeats) during 3 inspections from August 2005 to January 2008. In July 2007, AC sent an official warning to correct the identified care and cleanliness violations or face a “more severe penalty.” In January 2008, AC found the same violations but, instead of imposing a more severe penalty, sent another official warning.

National instructions state that an official warning can be sent if no other enforcement action was taken against the violator in the previous 3 years.33 In this case, the violator had received an official warning 7 months before so a more serious action was warranted. When we asked AC why a more serious action was not taken, regional management told us that the breeder was making progress. Consequently, national instructions were not followed in order to give the breeder “a reasonable opportunity” to comply with AWA.

Four months later, during our visit to the facility in June 2008, AC cited the breeder for another 9 violations (including 4 repeats). For example, a large amount of feces and urine was pooled under the kennels producing an overpowering odor (see figure 4). The inspector recommended no enforcement action.

Figure 4: Deep Pool of Feces and Urine Under Occupied Kennel

The breeder was cited for cleaning and sanitation violations during this inspection.

Four months later, the breeder was re-inspected and cited for 4 more violations (including 3 repeats). Again, AC took no enforcement action because the violator was “making credible progress,” as noted in AC’s “Enforcement Action Option Worksheet.”

UNITED STATES INSPECTOR GENERALS REPORT - MAY 2010 - USDA COMMERCIAL DOG BREEDING INDUSTRY - NEWPORT BEACH CITIZENS WANT BAN ON PET STORE PUPPIES

UNITED STATES INSPECTOR GENERALS REPORT - 

MAY 2010 - USDA COMMERCIAL DOG BREEDING INDUSTRY - NEWPORT BEACH CITIZENS WANT BAN ON PET STORE PUPPIES

Case finding: Lack of Veterinary care, dog's leg left seven days rotting away flesh down to the bone.

EXACT PHOTO-EXAMPLEEX1. At a facility in Oklahoma with 83 adult dogs, AC cited the breeder for a total of 20 violations (including 1 repeat and 1 direct) during 5 inspections from April 2006 to December 2007. The direct violation concerned the lack of adequate veterinary care for three dogs withhair loss over their entire bodies and raw, irritated spots on their skin.27 Despite the continuing violations, AC did not take enforcement actions due to its lenient practices against repeat violators.
During our visit to the facility in July 2008, AC cited the breeder for another 11 violations (including 1 repeat and 3 directs). One of the direct violations involved a dog that had been bitten by another dog. The first dog was left untreated for at least 7 days, which resulted in the flesh around the wound rotting away to the bone (see figure 2).
Figure 2: Live Dog With Mutilated Leg
The breeder admitted the dog had been in this condition for at least 7 days. The inspector correctly required the dog to be taken to a local veterinarian who immediately euthanized it.
AC did refer the case to IES for investigation, but only after another direct violation was documented in a subsequent inspection after our visit. Based on the results of the investigation, AC recommended a stipulation. However, as of early June 2009—11 months after our visit—the violator had not yet been fined.28
Also, although AWA states that “the Secretary is authorized to cooperate with the officials of the various States . . . in carrying out the purpose of [AWA],”29 AC did not establish procedures to forward animal cruelty cases to these officials. In this case, AC did not notify the State of Oklahoma (which has first-offense felony laws for animal cruelty) of the inhumane treatment the dog received.

UNITED STATES INSPECTOR GENERALS REPORT - MAY 2010 - USDA COMMERCIAL DOG BREEDING INDUSTRY - PET STORE PUPPIES

UNITED STATES INSPECTOR GENERALS REPORT - 
MAY 2010 - USDA COMMERCIAL DOG BREEDING INDUSTRY - PET STORE PUPPIES


Case finding: Breeder with dogs with excessive ticks, Oklahoma

EXACT PHOTO-Example 2-(breeder with dogs with excessive ticks)-: At another facility in Oklahoma with 96 adult dogs, AC cited the breeder for 23 violations (including 12 repeats) during 4 inspections from August 2005 to September 2007. Although national office instructions state, “if compliance [is] not attained quickly, proceed to other enforcement steps,” AC could not explain why it took no enforcement action.30

During our visit to the facility in July 2008, AC cited the breeder for another 11 violations (including 1 repeat). We found numerous dogs infested with ticks. In one case, the ticks completely covered the dog’s body (see figure 3). The dog appeared extremely tired and stressed and did not move, even when we approached it.

Too Late? (Puppy Mills/Dog Farms) (2011)

BEING BORN TO DIE--MAKING MORE AND MORE 
WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE PLENTY

\

How long does it take people to see through the lies and take off their rose colored glasses?.... There is no such thing as a humane Pet Store Breeder... They are captors, not loving owners... These are factories, not canine lovers, who breed for pleasure and pride of superior offspring and share a deep respect and bond with their animals.....FACTORIES.....Canines are Sentient beings and consciously experience emotion on a deep level and carry that with them in their existence....  Life confined to a cage with only six inches on either side of your body is torture to a roaming social animal like a canine, who 's sole purpose his entire life, is to yearn for the comfort, love and acceptance of his master... his Best Friend....Humans may be able reason and understand that this world is not fair and it is not easy,... but Mill dogs know nothing but an entire life of neglect with deep soul crushing loneliness that could only rival the depth of their unquestioning loyalty they offer humans regardless of the way they are treated ..... Deep Pain of loneliness, hunger, fear, and sickness..... This is not life just isn't fair sometimes, this is about the intentional torture and murder of Man's Best friend for GREED AND PROFIT. That IS ALL IT IS..... Please educate yourself and watch this video.

Puppy Mill Insider Speaks Out

I have heard so many horrific stories from organizations who investigate commercial breeders it simply is not anything on this earth a normal, stable, non-pathological mind could ever imagine. It disturbs a person right down to the core of their soul. It changes you permanently to bare witness to things most people simply could not handle. I think that in itself, is why exposing the cruelty of puppy mills can be such a daunting and tiresome task..... to the average healthy mind, it is simply UNBELIEVABLE.

H.R. 835: Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act

It is great to see the puppies and the mill dogs making legislation after 50 years of torture for the breeding of Pet Store Puppies...


However, this bill is highly inadequate and not enough by any stretch of the imagination.  As long as dogs are factory farmed for commercial sale, the Hell they endure in the name of greed under emotional ransom for the cute little puppy in the window will most certainly continue.


  And when and if this Bill ever passes, it is just keeping the wolves in charge of the Hen House.  Horrific AWA crimes are being committed now, and they will continue to ensure a  low product cost and high profits.  Besides the inspector comes by ONE DAY A YEAR... this bill is nothing but political placating for the simple reason, there is no money in animal welfare... we all get that, VERY CLEAR!.... Canine's can't vote, Canine Lovers can.

Summaries

Congressional Research Service Summary

The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.

2/28/2011--Introduced.

Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act - Amends the Animal Welfare Act to define a "high volume retail breeder" as a person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit: (1) has an ownership interest in or custody of one or more breeding female dogs; and (2) sells, via any means of conveyance, more than 50 of the offspring of such dogs for use as pets in any one-year period. Considers such a breeder of dogs to be a dealer. Requires dealers to include on licensing applications and annual renewals the total number of dogs exempted from exercise on the premises of the dealer in the preceding year by a licensed veterinarian. Requires the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to promulgate requirements for the exercise of dogs at facilities owned or operated by a dealer, including requiring daily access to exercise that: (1) allows the dogs to move sufficiently in a way that is not forced, repetitive, or restrictive; and (2) is in an area that is spacious, cleaned at least once a day, free of infestation by pests or vermin, and designed to prevent the dogs from escaping. Allows an exemption if: (1) a licensed veterinarian determines that a dog should not exercise because of the health, condition, or well-being of the dog; and (2) such determination is reviewed and updated at least once every 30 days by the veterinarian, unless the basis for the determination is a permanent condition. Subjects such a determination to review and approval by the Secretary.

FOR FULL TEXT OF H.R. 835
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-835

NEWPORT BEACH MIDWEST MILL PUPPIES AND KITTENS IN KILL SHELTERS OF ORANGE COUNTY

NEWPORT BEACH'S MIDWEST MILL PUPPIES AND KITTENS, DUMPED IN KILL SHELTERS OF 

ORANGE COUNTY

This photo contains just a few of the 131 Adoptable Dogs on Death Row Today, in our county shelter

 OC Animal Care.  Is it not our responsibility as a leader of communities and leading city in Orange County, a National Award Winner for Preservation of Life, to not continue to contribute to the murdered canine population of our county shelter simply because they have no homes???

Click here for video -- Per Newport Beach's own OC HUMANE SOCIETY, a large problem of shelter overpopulation is caused by Pet Store Puppies

Newport Beaches highest revenues other than property tax, is visiting patron income.  They patronize Newport Beach for quality pets.  What they get is Midwest Puppy Mill Puppies and Kittens.  These maladjusted animals later dumped by uncommitted owners are a major cause of shelter over populations as stated on the website of our OWN OC HUMANE SOCIETY Shelter for Newport Beach. Newport Pet Stores are supplying high volume and a constant stream of Newport Puppy Mill Dogs to our Newport Shelter, and guaranteeing a full house at  "OC Animal Care", our County KILL SHELTER. The Mayor and Council have been in possession for months now,  of investigative video, of breeders supplying Newport Beach Pet Stores, along with USDA reports of these breeder's crimes and violations of Federal AWA, USDA, and State Laws.  Is Newport Beach a city that condones animal cruelty and torture for business tax income?  Newport Beach has many highly successful HUMANE Pet Stores that are very profitable.  Why is our city taking business tax income from Puppy Mill Sales, an industry our own federal government states is unregulated with canine and feline torture?  --  California Kills 500,000 per year in it's Shelters. At the bottom of page please view the Puppy mill - Pet Store - Shelter Killing Cycle. Pelican Hill shines in our community of high standards and superior quality,  a nice mask for covering our city's participation of investing in the industry of the torture of Man's Best Friend. It is not a question of  what is RIGHT.  The question is, whom in the city of Newport, will DO THE RIGHT THING??

Irvine bans retail sales of dogs, cats

ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, OCTOBER 11, 2011

IRVINE BANS RETAIL SALES OF DOGS, CATS

The move mirrored actions that have become common across North America as concern mounts over large-scale breeding operations supplying pet stores. Similar prohibitions on shops selling canines and felines have been enacted or proposed recently in several Canadian provinces as well as cities in California, Texas, Missouri and Ohio.

Society is "moving toward a more thoughtful and conscientious approach to animals," speaker Claire Kim said Tuesday night. "This ordinance responds to the spirit of our times."

My Comment for Mayor Kang,

 "To Mayor Kang and Irvine Council...BRAVO!...we will remember you taking action to protect your citizens and your stand to maintain a superior quality of living for Irvine residents!! "

What this article failed to mention, was the thunder of standing applause, the tears

 of joy and relief from those who dedicate their lives and souls to the never ending

 task of saving the homeless animals in Orange County, and a roar of gratitude to 

Mayor Kang  and  Irvine Council , from those who seek superior leadership void of 

personal gain, higher ideals than that of current society, and respect for life in a world sold 

out to personal agendas.

THANK YOU FOR RESTORING OUR FAITH IN HUMANITY

MAYOR KANG AND COUNCIL OF IRVINE!

LABORATORY TESTING ON DOGS IS BIG BUSINESS!

LABORATORY TESTING ON DOGS IS BIG BUSINESS!

Don't be so Naive.... Where do you think PET STORE PUPPIES went, when they were just a month too old past being small, adorable, extra cute and fluffy???  No.... unfortunately, it is NOT to go live a happy life out on a farm in the countryside.

Realistically speaking, do you think the unconscionable Pet Store owner Puppy Mill friend and supporter (who's business is merchandising baby puppies to the first person through the door with a credit card ) is going to take his or her time, and financial loses, to find a good home??

Store owners broker them to LABORATORIES for scientific research where they are tortured to death.  Pet store owner will insure they still make a sizable profit over his puppy mill purchase cost.  There is much more to come on this issue.... any person would be a fool to think it is not happening in THEIR CITY.  

WHERE IS THE LOVE NEWPORT BEACH? PLEASE SUPPORT A BAN ON USDA COMMERCIALLY BRED PUPPY MILL DOGS IN OUR BEAUTIFUL AND HUMANE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

WHERE IS THE LOVE NEWPORT BEACH?

THERE ARE OVER 1.5 MILLION USDA PUPPY MILL BREEDING DOGS BEGGING FOR YOUR HELP!

PLEASE SUPPORT A BAN ON USDA COMMERCIALLY 
BRED PUPPY MILL DOGS IN OUR BEAUTIFUL AND HUMANE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

Please click here to see one way you can help the suffering mother mill dogs of Newport Beach Pet Store Puppies

THINK OCCASIONALLY OF THE SUFFERING FOR WHICH YOU SPARE YOURSELF THE SIGHT

THE FACES THAT KEEP ME UP AT NIGHT

This is just a sample of OC Animal Care today. A whole new batch from last week.  Owner surrender dogs only get five days for adoption, and for those I pray it includes a weekend, where they may have the chance to be adopted.  Strays get about 7 days.  It takes a team of about 10 ladies, donating funds, finding fosters, and lining up a puller or a rescue to get to save just one life, before they get the needle.  It's an exhausting fast pace rush to save a life from a kill shelter.  Half will never make it out.

  California kills 500,000 animals a year it's shelters.  They are plucked from their cold cement prison cells by a rope around their neck.  They know what's happening, they can sense it, and have been smelling the death from the dogs that have been drug past their cells all week that never came back.  They are tied to the wall outside the room of death where they freeze in terror and cry to leave.  They wait their turn, and never turn on their captors.  It is a sight you will never want to see your entire life, because it changes your soul.  And yet it happens all day, every day, all year long in Orange County.  OC Animal Care murdered almost 4,000 canines alone last year.  Abandoned loving pets by irresponsible owners, almost 60 % were sold thru a pet store as a spontaneous purchase.  There simply are no words for the holocaust we commit in Orange County to our loving canine companions and "Man's Best Friend."    Humans are their protectors and in return they amazing offer us loyalty, courage, undconditonal love and would risk their lives with out hesitation to save the life of their human. We strap them down against their will while they cry in terror and shove a poisonous need in their arm..... we are a society who murders Man's Best Friend for convenience.  Disgraceful and Unnecessary.  If you work in Rescue or are simply a person of morals with regard for life and living beings, it makes you ashamed to belong to the human race, on a daily basis.

USDA BREEDER INVESTIGATION - CAPS Companion Animal Protection Society

USDA BREEDERS -- THE FACTORY FARM MANUFACTURING OF PET STORE PUPPIES

CAPS UNDERCOVER INESTIGATIVE FOOTAGE PRESENTED IN FEDERAL TRIAL IN A WIN OVER THE USDA

CAPS began investigating Kathy Bauck, the owner and operator of "Pick of the Litter" in Minnesota, in 1997. Bauck, one of the largest USDA licensed dog brokers and breeders in the country, sold thousands of dogs to pet shops and Internet buyers all over the country.

Due to the efforts of the Companion Animal Protection Society, Bauck will no longer be able to sell to pet shops and other dog breeders and brokers. On August 13, 2009, the USDA/APHIS filed a Motion for Summary Judgment requesting the termination of Bauck's license. It is rare for the agency to request the termination of a license, especially through the expedited means of a summary judgment. CAPS believes the use of a summary judgment was due to the pressure APHIS felt from our petition for rulemaking mandating that USDA automatically terminate a license upon an animal cruelty conviction. On September 29, the administrative law judge issued a decision and order in the Bauck case, granting APHIS' motion for summary judgment. On October 29, Bauck appealed that decision to the judicial officer. APHIS filed a response to her appeal on November 18. The Judicial Officer's Order and Decision dated December 2 terminated Bauck's license. This termination was stayed pending Bauck's federal court appeal, which was denied. Bauck's license was officially terminated in August 2010. It is unfortunate that Bauck was allowed to keep her license during this yearlong legal process.


The USDA had licensed Bauck since 1983, and despite CAPS investigations since 1997, the USDA did not take action. The July 2008 USDA inspection report for Bauck found no violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). They did not inspect her again until March 4, 2009, just three weeks before her conviction. The inspector cited her for veterinary and cleaning violations.


CAPS has been investigating the USDA's failure to enforce the AWA since 1995 and has been lobbying members of Congress for oversight hearings regarding USDA's lax enforcement of the AWA. CAPS went to Capitol Hill in June 2009 to meet with USDA officials and congressional aides, using the Bauck case as evidence of the USDA's dereliction of duty. CAPS' pro bono lobbyists submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that AWA regulations be amended to require the automatic revocation of a USDA license upon the conviction in a court of law of a licensee, such as Bauck, for animal cruelty.


Based on evidence from a CAPS undercover employment opportunity of six weeks, a jury convicted Bauck on March 24, 2009 of four misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty and torture. On May 1, 2009, in what CAPS and animal advocates consider a great miscarriage of justice, the judge sentenced Bauck on just one of the counts, which he wrongly believed encompassed the other charges. She received a 90-day sentence, reduced to 20 days (weekday work release at the sheriff's discretion), a $500 fine (reduced from $1,000), 80 hours of community service and one year of probation.


While under a cease and desist order from the State Veterinary Board for the practice of veterinary medicine, including doing C-Sections on her dogs, Bauck continued to practice vet medicine, which was documented by her employees. However, the state allowed her to plea bargain for just one charge for the practice of veterinary medicine and dropped the cruelty charge for killing a puppy by bashing it against a pole. While on parole and serving work release, she continued to commit cruelty that was documented by a CAPS undercover investigator. CAPS submitted the investigator's hidden camera footage, photographs and reports to local authorities. This documentary evidence was the basis of the criminal case against Bauck.
At the time of the investigator's employment, Bauck's facility held 900 adult dogs and approximately 400 puppies. The undercover video shot by the CAPS investigator shows dogs that are sick, wounded, and emaciated. Dogs at her facility commonly became wounded through fights, even some of the small breed dogs.


Bauck will still be able to sell dogs on the Internet. The Animal Welfare Act does not cover Internet breeders. However, if proposed legislation in Minnesota requiring state kennel licenses is passed, those convicted of animal cruelty and their business associates will be banned from obtaining a license. CAPS plans to investigate numerous Minnesota puppy mills to provide evidence in support of this legislation.
The Bauck case made national headlines with coverage by CBS stations in Chicago, Minneapolis and Los Angeles. CBS Chicago had the exclusive interview and footage. ABC in Boston aired a number of reports on the Bauck case. Bauck sold dogs to several pet shops and to Internet buyers across the state of Massachusetts. CAPS is about to make public a documentary about the Bauck investigation and criminal case.


ARTICLE WRITEN BY CAPS- http://www.caps-web.org/


THE MANY VICTIMS OF USDA PUPPY MILLS: NEWPORT BEACH CITIZENS DEMAND AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING HUMANE PET STORES

THE MANY VICTIMS OF USDA PUPPY MILLS

NEWPORT BEACH CITIZENS DEMAND AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING HUMANE PET STORES

There are many victims of Puppy Mills. The mill dogs, their sickly offspring shipped from the midwest by truck or airplane that spend a lifetime suffering genetic ailments, the shelter puppy who is murdered because he has no home. Newport Beach sells animal cruelty to line the pockets of a few greedy INHUMANE business owners. Newport Beach has many profitable HUMANE Pet Stores that benefit highly financially. Newport Beach Pet Stores must be mandated to practice a Humane Business Model. Less our entire city commits itself to the sale and profits of animal torture and death for unethical businesses committing illegal consumer fraud, and victimizing our citizens and children.