75 Schultz Road
Manorville, NY 11949
Date and time of CAPS investigation: 11-20-21; 1:00 – 3:15 pm
Number of puppies observed on premises during course of investigation:
There were 50 puppies in one room, and an unknown in another room which I was unable to access. I heard the barking of many additional dogs housed in other areas of the kennel that I was also unable to access.
Signage observed on premises during course of investigation:
There was signage required by New York State General Business Law 753-B (4) that states, “Information on the source of these dogs and cats and the veterinary treatments received by these dogs and cats is available for review by prospective purchasers.” This signage was located on a wall near several of the puppy enclosures. There was an identical sign located in the front office. I also observed a sign near the puppy enclosures that stated, “Pedigree registration means that the particular registry maintains information, parentage and identity of the animal.”
Signage not observed on premises during course of investigation:
1) There was no signage posted below the above-mentioned New York State signage stating “United States Department of Agriculture inspection reports are available upon request.” This is a violation of the Suffolk County Pet Dealer Bill, Article VIII Pet Dealers and Pet Stores, Section 229-58 D (see following link: Suffolk County Pet Dealer Bill).
2)There was no signage posted and visible from the exterior of the store directing consumers to a webpage for the Department of Labor, Licensing and Consumer Affairs. This is a violation of the Suffolk County Pet Dealer Bill (see following link: Suffolk County Pet Dealer Bill) Section 299-58 H that states “Pet dealers and pet stores shall post a sign provided by the Department of Labor, Licensing and Consumer Affairs at the entrance of their businesses which is fully visible from the exterior of the store that directs consumers to a webpage maintained by the Department of Labor, Licensing and Consumer Affairs regarding pet dealer and pet stores” (see following link: Photo of front entrance to Sportsman’s Kennels – missing required signage).
Layout of store and puppy enclosures observed during investigation:
The front entrance area of the store contained a sales desk to the left, another sales area to the right, and sales merchandise hanging on the walls in between. In the main puppy room, I saw approximately 50 puppies in enclosures that were about 4’ high with painted wood walls, plexiglass fronts and shredded paper on the floor. Cage cards were posted on the cages listing the puppies’ breeders’ names, state, and USDA numbers, as well as each puppy’s breed, sex, color, date of birth, and microchip number. I noted that there was another room containing puppies to which I was not given access.
Details of investigation:
Per the store’s policy, I called in advance to schedule an appointment. I spoke with a woman who identified herself as Helen and told me that puppy viewings would be conducted outdoors due to COVID-19. When I arrived at my scheduled appointment time and went into the main office, Helen (Caucasian female, 85 years old, approximately 175 pounds and 5’2” tall, short dark hair, baseball cap, identified as the owner of the store by another employee) directed me to an outdoor enclosure. An employee (Hispanic male, approximately 45 years old, 170 pounds; 5’8” tall, short dark hair) brought me two male Dachshunds to see.
Helen drove her car to the enclosure. We heard a large number of dogs barking. She said, “We’ve got a lot of dogs. We breed dogs. We’ve got lots of Rotties, Labs, Goldendoodles.” Note, later in the investigation Helen told me that she also bred Wheaten terriers, Golden Retrievers, mini Goldendoodles, Poodles, Shih Tzus, and Maltese. When I asked if she bred Dachshunds, she replied, “I have a good breeder for Dachshunds. Why bother?” I then inquired where the breeder was located. She said, “I will get you all the paperwork. I’ll be right back.” She then drove away. She returned in her car 36 minutes later. She handed me some paperwork on how to care for a puppy at home but no breeder information. I asked who the breeder was and why she liked that breeder. She replied, “Because they’re the best. I never get a problem with their dogs.… I use the same breeders, year in and year out. My dogs, I know what they are. I know what they look like before I even get them. I know that they’re solid and they’re healthy. That’s why I deal with them.”
The above statement is extremely false and misleading. During the investigation, I saw four cage cards (Eli Miller Cage Card 1, Elie Miller Cage Card 2, Eli Miller Cage Card 3, Eli Miller Cage Card 4) for puppies sourced by Sportsman’s Kennels from breeder Eli Miller USDA #43-A-6250. Eli Miller, also listed on the store’s cage cards as Eli A. Miller, owns and operates Hill Top Kennel in Clark, Missouri. Under his previous USDA breeding license #43-A-5541, Miller received violations for a Shih Tzu with an eye lesion and feed containing insects and worms (Eli Miller – USDA Inspection Report 07-15-14); dogs heavily infested with fleas (Eli Miller – USDA Inspection Report 07-07-15); and no access to the property (Eli Miller – USDA Inspection Report 07-18-16). In August of 2016, Miller’s license to breed was suspended for four weeks by the USDA (Eli Miller – Suspension of USDA license ) for repeat violations of the Federal Animal Welfare Act; Miller was fined $1,920. Clearly, a breeder whose license was suspended by the USDA for multiple repeat violations cannot be considered “the best”, as the owner asserts. Furthermore, by sourcing puppies from Eli Miller, Sportsman’s Kennels could be in violation of Suffolk County Law, per the Suffolk County Pet Dealer Bill (Suffolk County Pet Dealer Bill), Article VIII Pet Dealers and Pet Stores, Section 229-58 (K) which states: “Pet dealers shall not do business with any person who was previously licensed by the USDA as a breeder or a broker but had such license revoked or who voluntarily relinquished same.”
The federal court order stipulated that Miller not be found with any additional violations for a probation period of three years, but issues were found just three months later (Eli Miller – USDA Inspection Report 12-10-16) when Miller received a “direct violation,” the USDA’s most serious offense, for a Shih Tzu with an eye infection and eye lesion and a female Pug with untreated eye issues, hair loss and scab-like lesions. Additional violations at this same inspection included uncleaned buildings and surfaces; outdoor enclosures with inadequate wind/rain breaks that did not adequately protects dogs from the elements; enclosures that had broken wires with sharp points; and water bowls with an algae-like substance inside. USDA inspectors issued a repeat direct violation at the next inspection (Eli Miller – USDA Inspection Report 03-21-17) for an untreated male Pug suffering from hair loss and reddened, scabbed skin lesions. Eli Miller’s USDA license #43-A-5541was cancelled on August 4, 2017, adding to his previous license cancellations on March 22, 2007 and June 26, 2009 (Eli Miller – USDA license cancellations).
Furthermore, Eli Miller has received numerous violations from the Missouri Department of Agriculture over the years. These include the following:
On 02-07-2020 (Eli Miller: Missouri State Inspection Report 02-07-2020), inspectors documented the following: two litters of puppies who were housed outdoors in the winter cold; rat trails and rats that had been killed by the dogs in the enclosures; an expired Enhanced Program of Veterinary Care; dogs with long, matted hair; and failure to have all dogs examined on a yearly basis.
On 08-26-2019 (Eli Miller: Missouri State Inspection Report 08-26-19), inspectors documented the following: dogs in one entire building who did not have any drinking water; two Pugs with ocular discharge; a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel with abnormal posture in his back legs; a Shih Tzu with a hot spot on her hip and a wound on her tail that was open, exposing the underlying tissue; buildups of dirt and grime; and outdoor enclosures with dig holes.
On 03-23-17 (Eli Miller: Missouri State Inspection Report 03-23-17), inspectors cited Miller for housing dogs in outdoor enclosures without access to shade from the direct rays of the sun.
On 09-12-2016 (Eli Miller: Missouri State Inspection Report 09-12-16), inspectors documented the following: multiple dogs in cages that were inadequate in size; water receptacles containing a build-up of algae and debris; and puppies lacking proper identification.
On 02-16-16 (Eli Miller: Missouri State Inspection Report 02-16-16), inspectors cited Miller for outdoor enclosures with standing water and inadequate drainage.
On 12-09-15 (Eli Miller: Missouri State Inspection Report 12-09-15), inspectors documented the following: a build-up of fecal matter in the openings of the flooring; a repeat violation for having wire flooring; and a repeat violation for non-compliance with space requirements.
On 05-21-15 (Eli Miller: Missouri State Inspection Report 05-21-15), inspectors documented the following: a Pug with an open area of flesh from the top of his neck to the top of his shoulder and another wound on his spine; shelter that was not impervious to moisture; enclosures with wire flooring; and enclosures that were inadequate in size for the size and number of dogs housed within.
On 07-23-14 (Eli Miller: Missouri State Inspection Report 07-23-14), inspectors documented dogs housed in outdoor enclosures without access to water.
On 11-12-13 (Eli Miller: Missouri State Inspection Report 11-12-13), inspectors documented juvenile dogs over 16 weeks age not recorded on the “dogs on hand” records, a repeat violation for which Miller was issued an official letter of warning (Eli Miller: Official Letter of Warning 11-12-13).
On 06-10-13 (Eli Miller: Missouri State Inspection Report 06-10-13), inspectors documented the following: divider wires not appropriately fixed to enclosure floorings, causing gaps in the flooring; loose, broken and protruding wires in an enclosure; dogs lacking identification; a dog from out of state lacking a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection; and dogs with excessively long toe nails.
On 04-24-13 (Eli Miller: Missouri State Inspection Report 04-24-13), inspectors documented the following: water receptacles with build ups of grime and algae; a repeat violation for dogs housed on wire strand flooring; and a repeat violation for enclosures containing dogs with inadequate space. The State of Missouri issued Miller an official letter of warning (Eli Miller: Official Letter of Warning 04-25-13; Eli Miller: Official Letter of Warning page 2; 04-25-13).
On 08-23-12 (Eli Miller: Missouri State Inspection Report 08-23-12), inspectors documented the following: build-ups of grime, dirt and debris; lack of indoor auxiliary ventilation in multiple structures; inadequate solid resting surfaces for the size and number of dogs housed in enclosures; wire strand flooring; multiple dog enclosures with inadequate space for the size and amount of dogs housed within; and a veterinary care violation for no veterinary site visit in over a year.
On 08-05-11 (Eli Miller: Missouri State Inspection Report 08-05-11), inspectors documented the following: repeat violations for grass and weeds in the outdoor pens that were taller than some of the dogs contained within; walls and doors with build-ups of grime and dirt; and coated wire whose coating had come off and was becoming rusted. The State of Missouri issued Miller an official letter of warning (Eli Miller: Official Letter of Warning page 1; 08-05-11; Eli Miller: Offical Letter of Warning page 2; 08-05-11).
On 07-20-11 (Eli Miller: Missouri State Inspection Report 07-20-11), Miller received a “direct” violation for lack of sufficient ventilation. Inspectors recorded the temperature in the inside portion of the sheltered facility at 96.6 degrees Fahrenheit and observed adult dogs who were panting and at least 4 puppies that were “very lifeless, not being able to hold their heads up and their bodies limp.” At this same inspection, the inspector documented the following: several puppies lying with their legs extended through the wire flooring who were unable to pull their legs back; dogs with matted hair; a Beagle with crusted, scaly patches; coated wire whose coating had come off and was becoming rusted; build-up of fecal matter on the washdown under the outside runs; pooled waste and fly larvae in same; and an excess of accumulation of feces. These latter two violations were repeat and earned Miller another official letter of warning (Eli Miller: Official Letter of Warning 07-20-11).
Due to the violations cited by the State of Missouri as outlined on the inspection report dated 02/07/20 (see above), Sportsman’s Kennels is in violation of Suffolk County Law for selling puppies sourced from Eli Miller. The Suffolk County Pet Dealer Bill Section 299-58 (B) (6) states: “No pet dealer shall obtain or be in possession of animals intended for sale originating from a breeder or a broker that has received any violations on a state inspection report related to the health and welfare of the animal from the breeder’s or broker’s state of origin within the past two years, if applicable.”
The Humane Society of the United States has also documented Eli Miller’s many violations over the years. In it’s “Horrible Hundred” 2020 report of the nation’s worst puppy mills (Eli Miller – HSUS Horrible Hundred 2020), the HSUS states, “Terrible violations have continued into 2020 at Hill Top Kennel, a repeat violator.” The report noted that the HSUS had notified the USDA of its concerns regarding Miller being permitted to obtain a new license number, presumably to evade his history of violations. The report states, “This action will allow the licensee to present the new license to potential pet store buyers and falsely make it appear as if his license is not linked to his many past violations.” Evidently, this is precisely what Miller has done. The owner of Sportsman’s Kennels, if she knows the breeders, travels to the breeders’ facilities, and endorses them as “the best,” all of which she asserts during the course of the investigation, would most certainly be aware of Miller’s violations. The fact that the owner continues to source dogs from Eli Miller proves that she is not using “the best” breeders, and her statement to that effect is extremely false and misleading.
During the 2.25-hour investigation, I asked to know the name of the Dachshund’s breeder and where he was located no less than seven times. The second time, when I asked to see the dog’s paperwork, Helen replied, “No. We don’t give you paperwork until you buy the dog.” This is a violation of the Suffolk County Law, per the Suffolk County Pet Dealer Bill, Article VIII Pet Dealers and Pet Stores, Section 229-58 (D) which states “Any pet dealer or pet store offering animals for sale shall, upon request of the prospective consumer, make available a copy of the most recent inspection reports conducted by the USDA and the animal’s state of origin of the breeder and/or broker and/or transporter from which the subject animal came.” (Suffolk County Pet Dealer Bill)
The third time I asked for information on the Dachshund’s breeder, and whether the breeder just bred Dachshunds, the owner replied, “Okay, tell you what. You play a while and if he’s home, I’ll let you talk to him” and then drove away. This statement is extremely misleading, as it implies that the store has a relationship with the breeder. As was revealed later in the investigation, and as proven by a Certificate of Veterinary Inspection documented by CAPS for the puppy in question (Store paperwork for puppy #21642-04 from broker Patrick Fulton; CVI for puppy #21642-04 from broker Patrick Fulton), Sportsman’s Kennels purchased the puppy through a wholesale broker, Patrick Fulton of Fulton Enterprises USDA #41-B-0262, and not the breeder directly. In fact, the reason that pet stores like Sportsman’s Kennels purchase dogs through brokers like Fulton is so that they don’t need to deal with the individual breeders directly and can obtain a large variety and number of animals. The reason many breeders use brokers is so that they don’t need to deal with pet stores and consumers directly. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the owner would have a familiar relationship with the breeder that enabled her to contact him directly, much less put me, a potential customer, on the phone with him.
The fourth time I requested breeder information for the Dachshund, the owner replied, “Too many questions.” I commented that it was a lot of money ($3,000) to spend and that I wanted to do my homework. She replied, “You can always go to Pennsylvania and get ‘em for half price.” I said, “I just want to make sure I’m doing my due diligence. If you were me, what would you do to make sure you did your homework before buying a dog?” The owner walked away without answering my question. When she walked by me about 15 seconds later, I again asked if there was somebody else who could help me, but again she walked right by me without responding.
The fifth time I requested breeder information, Helen replied “Everything that I told you is pretty much it.” I said, “Well, I need to know the breeder. I want to know where the breeder is.” She said, “You need to know the breeder. You want to look the breeder up? Every breeder that we buy from has to be USDA. Has to have two clean, no violations, otherwise we can’t buy from them.” This statement is false because per the Suffolk County Pet Dealer Bill (Suffolk County Pet Dealer Bill), pet shops in Suffolk County are indeed able to purchase puppies from breeders who have certain violations and combinations of violations. This statement is misleading because it offers a false assurance that the store’s puppies only come from breeders who do not have any violations. After making this statement, the owner still did not provide me with the name or any paperwork. I then asked her why she likes this breeder. She replied, “The bottom line is, why would I buy a dog from someone who is going to give me trouble? Simplest thing I can tell you. You have to buy from people that you know, that you don’t, I mean you’ve got to be pretty stupid if you keep buying from someone that you have a problem with. And you wouldn’t have a problem if you have a good breeder. That’s the whole thing. But you see you have no, the breeder has nothing to do with you at this point. He’s wholesaling it to me. I’m the one that guarantees you.” Her response, in addition to not providing the breeder information I had requested, was false and misleading. As noted previously, Eli Miller lives in Missouri. It is highly unlikely that the owner has visited his property, and if she had, she would have undoubtedly seen the terrible conditions documented numerous times by the USDA and Missouri State inspectors. Clearly, Eli Miller cannot be considered a “good” breeder, as the owner attests.
When I asked Helen if she had been to the Dachshund breeder’s property, she replied, “Yes, of course we have been.” Later, when I asked her the same question, she replied “No. Indiana.” The owner’s statements are contradictory, confusing, false and misleading. It is extremely unlikely that the owner has been to the breeder’s property. As noted previously, Sportsman’s Kennels purchased the puppy through a wholesale broker, Patrick Fulton of Fulton Enterprises, and not the breeder directly. Using a wholesale broker means that the store doesn’t need to deal with individual breeders directly. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the owner has been to the Dachshund breeder’s property.
Seconds after the sixth time I asked where the breeder was located, the puppy started coughing. Helen said, “Alright, well that dog won’t go anywhere. Well, that took care of that. That’s the end of that dog being offered for sale.” Helen directed another employee, Chelsea (Caucasian female, approximately 30 years old, 140 pounds, 5’8” tall, long brown hair and glasses) to take the puppy away from me. I asked if I could leave a deposit for the puppy. She said, “You’re fussy about where you buy. I’m fussy about who I sell to.” I reiterated that I had simply asked for breeder information, and I pointed out the sign posted immediately behind the owner which stated that information was available to “prospective purchasers.” She said the other employee “is going into the bookkeeper’s office to get the shipping information, which of course nobody ever asks for. It’s all on the paperwork when it goes home, anyway.”
Eighty-one minutes and six requests after my first request for the Dachshund’s breeder information, Helen handed me paperwork that included a breeder’s name and USDA number. However, it was for a different Dachshund than the one for whom I had indicated interest. I pointed this out to her. Finally, after 88 MINUTES and SEVEN requests for information on the breeder, she handed me paperwork containing the name and address for the correct puppy. However, Helen took it out of my hands just seconds later. Holding it, she pointed out the contract of sale, vaccination, and rabies information to me but not the breeder’s name or address. I ask to hold the paperwork. She handed it to me. I noted the breeder listed was Daniel Kuehne, MN, USDA # 41-A-0349 and the broker listed was Fulton Enterprises, MN USDA # 41-B-0262. A moment later, I again asked her for some assurance on the breeder. She interrupted me by saying, “I can’t because I’m listening to you and I’m thinking to myself you may not be ready for any dog now.” She walked away and directed Chelsea to answer my questions.
Chelsea pointed out the names of the breeder and broker to me. I commented on how helpful she was being. She replied, “Honestly, I would have helped you before, but I can’t help unless I’m told that I can open my mouth.” Chelsea stated, “Helen uses the same breeders over and over again.” I asked for assurance that they know the breeder, that he is someone they trust and feel good about. She said they have been using the same people for 10 years. I asked if she visited the breeders herself. She replied, “Helen and a couple of her other co-workers have visited…. She does like to visit the facilities for the once over and all of that.” This information is false and misleading for the reasons stated above. I asked if Helen knew this breeder and she replied “Yes. Uh huh.” This statement is also false and misleading for the reasons stated above. I asked how big the breeder’s place was and how many dogs he had. She said that she didn’t know. I said that I wanted to know if it was a big farm, if they live in cages, and if they get to run. She replied that she didn’t know what the conditions are for the dogs. I said that I wanted to make sure that it was a loving, humane, ethical breeder. I told her I would Google him for more information. The investigation ended at 3:15 p.m.
CAPS research of the USDA’s most recent inspection reports for the Dachshund’s breeder, Daniel Kuehne (USDA # 41-A-0349), documents that Kuehne had 545 dogs (319 adults, 226 puppies) on premises in 2021 (Daniel Kuehne – USDA Inspection Report 10-13-21) and 579 dogs (327 adults, 252 puppies) on premises in 2019 (Daniel Kuehne – USDA Inspection Report 07-14-19). The documented number of adult breeding dogs and puppies at Kuehne’s facility is consistent with being a commercial breeding establishment, also known as a puppy mill, that mass produces dogs for resale to pet shops. Please refer to the following link for a summary of legal cases defining the term “puppy mill”: Summary of legal cases defining “puppy mill”. Surely, if the owner of the store had visited Kuehne’s facility, as she and her employee Chelsea both stated, she would have seen for herself the large-scale mass breeding operation on premises. Thus, her assurance that her puppies are sourced from “the best” breeders is false and misleading.
Likewise, the breeder listed on the store paperwork (Justin & Jean Wagler – Pedigree) for the other Dachshund, Jason & Jean Wagler (USDA #32-A-0245), had 360 dogs (207 adults, 153 puppies) on premises at the most recent USDA inspection (Jason & Jean Wagler – USDA Inspection Report 10-26-21). Once again, this number of dogs on site is consistent with being a commercial breeding establishment, or puppy mill.
Additional Findings Documented on New York State Inspection Reports:
CAPS’ review of 2019-2021 New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Pet Dealer Inspection Reports for Sportsman’s Kennels documents multiple non-compliant items:
On 12-16-19 (Sportsman’s Kennels – NYS Inspection Report 12-16-19), inspectors documented 253 dogs (101 adults, 98 puppies, 54 neonate puppies) on site. Sportsman’s Kennels was cited for: excessive amounts of waste/feces accumulated in the outdoor runs actively housing dogs; excessive amount of waste/feces where animal are being housed; and four sick/injured dogs requiring veterinary attention.
On 10-29-20 (Sportsman’s Kennels – NYS Inspection Report 10-29-20), inspectors documented 310 dogs (110 adults, 104 puppies, 96 neonate puppies). Sportsman’s Kennels was cited for: rusty cage runs doors; cages needing repairs; holes on caging large enough for an animal’s head or extremities to pass through; cracked floor tiles needing replacement; back up of urine and feces throughout drains and debris in drains that run alongside the cages; no approved veterinary plan; no treatment plan available for dogs receiving medication; no written exercise plan; nine dogs lacking NYS licenses; a Boston Terrier who was not vaccinated for Rabies, per state law; and a Labrador Retriever not receiving veterinary treatment for prominent facial hair loss and hair loss on limbs/body.
On 11-05-20 (Sportsman’s Kennels – NYS Inspection Report 11-05-20), State inspectors returned to Sportsman’s Kennels and documented 344 dogs (134 adults, 129 puppies, 81 neonate puppies). Sportsman’s Kennels was cited for: damaged water buckets with punctured, pointed, rusty edges; written veterinary plan not available; veterinary plan not approved by veterinarian; no treatment plan available for animals receiving medication; the Labrador who still hadn’t received veterinary treatment for her skin issues; a written exercise plan that was not available nor approved by veterinarian; rusty cages, cages needing major repairs; runs not protecting dogs housed within from injury or exposure to hazards and/or don’t keep dogs safely contained; holes chewed through walls; splintering wood; sharp edges; and harboring unlicensed dogs over the age of four months. The inspector remarked on the inspection report that they had discussed with the owner the fact that records must be arranged and organized for a compliant inspection. (Note: Clearly, the owner continues to disregard this requirement, as evidenced by her remark to me the second time I asked for paperwork on the Dachshund, “I’m not going to chase paperwork.”)
On 12-16-21 (Sportsman’s Kennels – NYS Inspection Report 12-16-21), the store was again inspected by New York State. Inspectors documented 299 dogs (168 adults, 101 puppies, 30 neonatal puppies). Sportsman’s Kennels was cited for: insufficient paperwork; no treatment plan for animals receiving medication; no treatment log showing sick/injured animals being treated according to veterinary protocol; a Labrador Retriever lacking a health exam; sales records missing copies of sold dog licenses; an issue with the completed copies of the Information Statement Standard Form, which inspectors noted must be maintained to determine compliance; and an issue with the Consumer Rights Notice Handout, which inspectors noted “anything written in contract that restricts or diminishes the intent of the consumer’s rights is unacceptable”; an outside kennel wall that was rotted with exposed damage and unsealed wood; kennel runs with cracked and missing tiles on the floors; breeder runs with wooden gates that were not impervious to moisture and needed to be removed; strong odors present, indicating poor ventilation; several fans that were not working and had accumulations of dust on the blades and motors; enclosures not designed to allow efficient elimination of wastes, water and gases, causing a backup of the drain/sewage system and inability of animals to remove themselves from waste material or standing water; insufficient floor space for a mother dog to lay down outside of the whelping box; water buckets with rusting interiors; and drinking water contaminated by rust.
Due to the violations cited by New York State as outlined on the inspection reports above dated 12-16-19, 10-29-20, 11-05-20, and 12/16/21, Sportsman’s Kennels is in violation of Suffolk County Law. The Suffolk County Pet Dealer Bill Section 299-58 (B) (6) states: “No pet dealer shall obtain or be in possession of animals intended for sale originating from a breeder or a broker that has received any violations on a state inspection report related to the health and welfare of the animal from the breeder’s or broker’s state of origin within the past two years, if applicable.”
Notes/additional violations regarding New York State findings at Sportsman’s Kennels:
The large number of dogs documented by state inspectors at Sportsman’s Kennels is consistent with being a commercial breeding establishment, also known as a puppy mill, that mass produces dogs for resale. (Summary of legal cases defining “puppy mill”)
Additionally, the conditions documented by state inspectors at Sportsman’s Kennels cannot be considered “healthy and safe”. The store is therefore in violation of Suffolk County Law. Per the Suffolk County Pet Dealer Bill Article VIII Section 299-58A General Requirements: “No animal shall be offered for sale by a pet dealer or pet store unless the animal is at least eight weeks old, is in good health, has been weaned from its mother and was raised and is being maintained in a healthy and safe manner.” (Suffolk County Pet Dealer Bill)
Breeder and broker names obtained from cage cards and paperwork during store investigation:
Eli A. Miller, MO – Hill Top Kennel
Address listed on 1-25-21 USDA Inspection Report: 32751 Mahogany Street, Macon, MO 63552
Address listed on 10-16-19 USDA Inspection Report: 4385 Audrain Road 165, Clark, MO 65243
Number of dogs listed on 1-25-21 USDA Inspection Report: 115 (81 adults, 34 puppies)
Daniel Kuehne, MN
USDA # 41-A-0349
16649 Nystrom Avenue, Reading, MN 56165
Number of dogs listed on 10-13-21 USDA Inspection Report: 545 (319 adults, 226 puppies)
Patrick Fulton, Fulton Enterprises, MN
USDA # 41-B-0262
603 South Broadway, Alden, MN 56009
Jason & Jean Wagler, IN – Boggs Creek Kennel
USDA # 32-A-0245
4245 N 1050 E, Loogootee, IN 47553
Number of dogs listed on 10-26-21 USDA Inspection Report: 360 (207 adults, 153 puppies)
Shady Lane Kennel, IN
9255 E 925 N, Odon, IN 47562
Number of dogs listed on 11-13-19 USDA Inspection Report: 77 (45 adults, 32 puppies)
Sportsman’s Kennels, NY
75 Schultz Road, Manorville, NY 11949
Breeder/broker information obtained from August through October 2021 Certificates of Veterinary Inspection:
Esther & Willard Borntrager
23647 Stage Coach Lane, Brashear, MO 63533
CVI dated: 10-12-21
Number of dogs listed on 4-26-21 USDA Inspection Report: 34 (29 adults, 5 puppies)
1494 110th Street, Salem, IA 52649
CVI dated: 8-22-2021
Number of dogs listed on 5-12-19 USDA Inspection Report: 121 (71 adults, 50 puppies)
Patrick Fulton, Fulton Enterprises
USDA # 41-B-0262
603 South Broadway, Alden, MN 56009
CVIs dated: 9-10-21, 9-24-21
Number of dogs listed on 6-10-20 USDA Inspection Report: 2
Daniel M. Gingerich
1809 Audrain Rd. 173, Clark, MO 65243
CVIs dated: 9-8-21
Number of dogs listed on 1-26/21 USDA Inspection Report: 111 (66 adults, 45 puppies)
1153 125th Ave., Murray, IA 50174
CVI dated 8-26-2021
MG Cattle Inc.
1164 Pilot Grove Rd., Salem, IA 52649
CVI dated: 7-25-21
51627 Otter Road, Milan, MO 63556
CVIs dated: 8-6-21
Number of dogs listed on 12-17-20 USDA Inspection Report: 219 (142 adults, 77 puppies)
32732 St. Hwy E., La Plata, MO 63549
CVI dated: 8-20-21
Number of dogs listed on 10-18-21 USDA Inspection Report: 86 (56 adults, 30 puppies)
Note regarding number of dogs at above breeding facilities:
The numbers of adult breeding dogs and puppies at the above facilities are consistent with being commercial breeding establishments, also known as puppy mills, that mass produce dogs for resale to pet shops. Please refer to the following link for a summary of legal cases defining the term “puppy mill”: Summary of legal cases defining “puppy mill”.
Note regarding lack of USDA violations at above breeding facilities:
The fact that few breeders and brokers have USDA violations does not mean that none exist. During CAPS’ undercover investigations of USDA-licensed facilities, we document violations. USDA has made it very easy for licensees not to have violations. In response to regulatory ordinances, USDA started using teachable moments, self-inspections and a trial announced inspection program. Their recent guidelines also instructed inspectors not to cite ear, eye and dental diseases as veterinary care violations (this requirement was recently changed back). It is for these reasons that USDA Animal Welfare Act violations have significantly decreased.