Unthinkable! Couple Caught Selling Hundreds of Dogs to Labs

The illegally purchased dogs came from shelters, the street, even "free to a good home" pet ads. What the hell?!

You might have never given much thought to how medical researchers get dogs for their labs. The truth might be worse than you imagined. 

On Thursday, according to a story by Philly.com, Floyd and Susan Martin pleaded guilty in federal court to illegally purchasing dogs to sell to research facilities. How many dogs? Hundreds of them. To what institutions? Big ones, like Johns Hopkins and Columbia University.

And they received hundreds of thousands of dollars for those dogs, between 2005 and 2010.

The case throws light on the sordid world of dog-dealing for biomedical research. 

According to the Philly.com, the Martins, who are "random source" dog dealers, "bought their animals by the hundreds from shady individuals known as 'bunchers,' who collect dogs from auctions, shelters, the street, theft, and 'free to good home' pet ads."

Authorities say that two bunchers bought hundreds of dogs from different sources in 10 states, then sold them to the Martins for $50 to $75 each. The Martins then sold the dogs to labs for hundreds of dollars in profit per dog. 

"We’re talking about an abuse-ridden system of acquiring animals for research,” said Nancy Blaney, senior federal policy adviser for the Animal Welfare Institute, a national advocacy group. “‘Random source’ is what it sounds like it is. They can get animals from individuals who respond to ‘free to good home’ ads or animals being stolen. We know because they have been traced through microchipping.”

This is not what people had in mind with the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, which attempted to establish humane standards for animals in labs and regulate dealers who sold to them. 

The Martins are Class B or “random source” dog dealers, a designation that is federally sanctioned but controversial. These dealers may purchase dogs from unlicensed bunchers, but no more than 24 dogs per buncher per year. The Martins ran into trouble by buying hundreds of dogs from just two bunchers. 

The silver lining in all this is that only 3 percent of dogs used in biomedical research in the U.S. come from random-source dealers, and that number is decreasing because of the controversy of using former pets as lab subjects. 

Most labs buy from facilities whose dogs are bred for research.

As for the Martins, they made a deal with prosecutors, with Floyd pleading guilty to one count of mail fraud, for which he will serve a year in prison, and Susan pleaded guilty to a count of conspiracy, for which she will be placed on probation.

Via Philly.com

View the original article here

Study: Puppy Mills Are Selling Thousands of Dogs Online

“The Internet is the Wild West of puppy mills," says the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

A scathing new report from the International Fund for Animal Welfare finds that puppy mills are doing a massive business through online puppy-sale websites. How bad is it? Each day, the report claims, hundreds of thousands of puppy-mill puppies are advertised online. 

“The Internet is the Wild West of puppy mills. It’s a 24/7 unmonitored, anonymous marketplace, the world’s largest marketplace," Jeff Flocken, director of the IFAW office in Washington, told the Huffington Post. "It’s very difficult to monitor and therefore easy for sellers to circumvent laws." 

On one day in July, nine investigators from IFAW and 16 volunteers tracked ads on six sites known for high-volume puppy sales: Animaroo, DogsNow, NextDayPets, PuppyFind, PuppyTrader, and TerrificPet. They also scoured three more general-interest sites: Craigslist, eBay Classifieds, and Oodle. 

They found 733,000 puppies for sale out of nearly 10,000 puppy ads. Investigators determined that 62 percent of those ads were from puppy mills. How do they determine whether an online ad is from a puppy mill? 

According to HuffPo, "Investigators used a variety of factors ... including if the seller screens potential owners, if puppies under eight weeks old are offered, and if the same puppy is advertised as a different puppy elsewhere."

Other criteria include whether sites have no-refund or -return policies, whether 20 or more puppies are simultaneously advertised, whether the seller offers registration papers, whether ads include slogans such as "Easter Pets" or "Christmas Pets," and whether it appears that images of puppies have been digitally placed into different settings.

Flocken also said that another sign is whether the seller will let you visit the kennel: “Never buy an animal unless you can see the facility in which it was raised.”

The report went on to break down the sellers themselves, as well. Animaroo was the worst offender, with 85 percent of the ads seeming to come from puppy mills. Next was PuppyTrader (64 percent) followed by DogsNow (62 percent), NextDayPets (61 percent), PuppyFind (55 percent), and TerrificPets (44 percent). 

Needless to say, you should never buy a puppy from any of these sellers.  

When confronted with the evidence, Dean Hamill, president of PuppyTrader.com, told HuffPo that he bans breeders who receive a complaint "with merit."

"Breeders of bad reputation are usually found out quickly with this type of feedback," he said.

He also disputed the report: "The writers even admit to the report's likely inaccuracy by using their criteria to come to a conclusion that the advertisers were to be classified as only 'likely a puppy mill.'" 

With the report, IFAW aims to increase consumer awareness and keep websites from posting ads from puppy mills. The group held a press conference in Los Angeles with actor Ben Stein. 

“Consumers opting to purchase puppies over the Internet are duped into believing they are buying from reputable breeders,” Stein said. “The cute puppy images shown on many seller websites hide the heartbreaking reality of the overcrowded and unsanitary conditions in which the dogs are housed.”

To see the full report, click here. 

Via the Huffington Post

View the original article here