Definition in § 605/2: “Dog dealer” means any person who sells, offers for sale, barters or offers to adopt dogs in this state with or without charge or donation. However, a person who sells only dogs that he has produced and bred is not considered a dog dealer for the purposes of this Act, and a veterinary clinic or clinic operated by one or more veterinarians licensed under the Veterinary Medicine and Surgery Practice Act, 2004 is not considered a dog dealer under that Act. “Cat Breeder” means a person who sells, offers for sale, barters or offers for adoption with or without charge Cats that he has produced and raised. A person who owns, owns or harbours 5 or fewer females capable of breeding is not considered a cat breeder. “Dog breeder” means a person who sells, offers for sale, exchanges or offers for adoption dogs that he has produced and raised. A person who owns, owns or houses 5 or fewer people is not considered a dog breeder. “pet store” means a retail establishment where dogs or cats are sold, bartered, bartered, bartered or offered for sale to the public as pets in retail stores. This definition does not include breeding facilities or animal rescue organisations. Although all 50 states have anti-cruelty laws designed to prevent dog neglect and abuse, most large breeding facilities continue to operate in ways that mock these laws. In many cases, dogs are kept in puppy mills in physically and mentally harmful conditions that a single dog should never suffer from.
Anti-cruelty laws are rarely enforced at puppy mills as long as the animals have the rudimentary basics of shelter, food and water. Puppies Factory dogs are often treated as agricultural “crops” rather than pets. The new law effectively extends to laboratory animal producers the same standards and penalties that currently apply to other merchants and ranchers in Virginia. From 1 July 2023, traders and breeders of dogs and cats supplying these animals to research institutes will be prohibited from importing, selling or offering for sale dogs or cats bred by a person who has received a single award for a direct or critical violation of the AWA. The same restrictions apply if the breeder has received at least three indirect or non-critical infringements or two consecutive citations because he did not have access to his facility. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a Class 1 offence for any dog or cat imported, sold or offered for sale, punishable by up to twelve months in jail and/or a fine of up to $2500. No person shall falsely present the physical condition of an animal when selling, trading, delivering or otherwise transmitting the animal. For the purposes of this section, “misrepresentation” includes the sale, exchange, supply or other transfer of an animal to another person knowing that the animal has an infection, communicable disease, parasitic infestation, abnormality or other physical defect unknown to the person receiving the animal. The sale of a farm animal containing external or internal parasites unknown to the person receiving the animal is not an offence under this Division unless the animal is clinically ill or impaired at the time of sale, trade, delivery or movement of the animal because of those parasites. A violation of this section is a Class 3 offence. Under Article 122125, “pet dealer” means a person who sells dogs or cats, or both, in retail stores and who, in respect of the sale of dogs and cats, is required to hold a licence under Article 6066 of the Revenue and Tax Code. However, while there are specific exceptions to state animal cruelty laws that allow biomedical research as long as facilities comply with federal laws, state laws generally regulate animal husbandry operations.
3.1-796.70. Sale, etc. of unweaned animals or certain prohibited immature animals, compulsory vaccination for dogs and cats; Punishment. Some local humane societies and government agencies investigate conditions in puppy mills and intervene to rescue animals if necessary. However, in many cases, local authorities are not allowed to set foot in a puppy mill unless they have received a complaint from a credible person who has personally witnessed substandard conditions and animal suffering. Because so few puppy mills invite customers onto their property to buy dogs, it can be extremely difficult for law enforcement to intervene. For this reason, HSUS supports laws requiring regular unannounced inspections of large puppy mills. Dog breeders who raise puppies to be sold as pets must be approved by the USDA if they have more than four breeding females and sell puppies wholesale or invisible to pet stores, brokers, and/or online. But being “USDA approved” is nothing glorious – these standards leave plenty of room for dogs that are severely abused, and enforcement is disastrous. Most shelters consider the protection of these endangered animals part of their mission and usually strive to remove the animals from these poor conditions. However, it is important to remember that regular hosting operations do not stop when a raid is performed.
The shelter must continue to be open to the public and provide care and housing for the normal number of animals brought in by the community. If a shelter is able to enter an inhumane farm and abduct dogs, then financial and community support is essential to ensure the animals receive the help they need. The law also faces a possible pre-emption action under the AWA. Federal law expressly confers jurisdiction on the federal courts for violations and all other matters arising from the law. See 7 U.S.C. §§ 2146(c), 2149(c). Although the AWA plans to cooperate with local authorities (see, e.g., 7 U.S.C. § 2143(a)(8); 7 U.S.C. § 2145(b)), these provisions are closely tailored and do not remove federal control over the application of the AWA. Previous Federal Court decisions rejecting precautionary measures have often involved state and local laws that complement AWA rules and regulations, rather than laws that empower the state to enforce federal violations as in Virginia. See, for example, DeHart v. City of Austin, 39 F.3d 718 (7th Cir.
