Puppy-Laundering” and “Retail Rescues” as Part of the Problem

What began as a well-meaning effort by animal rescuers to purchase dogs from commercial breeders for a minimal amount has, over time, evolved into a lucrative underground market. (Center, 2018) Today, driven by widespread online fundraising campaigns, some rescuers are paying breeders hundreds of dollars per dog—funds going straight to the same breeders they once condemned.

This growing flow of donations now links two unlikely allies, long at odds with each other. Rescuers, who work to ban the sale of breeders' dogs in pet stores, are now funneling money into the very pockets of those they oppose. Meanwhile, breeders dismiss these so-called "retail rescuers" as hypocrites, accusing them of hiding behind nonprofit status while essentially running unregulated online pet shops and pet dealers.

With rescuers enriching breeders, some breeders are saying more puppies are being bred for sale to the rescuer organizations.  It is clear that rescues have become part of the larger puppy-mill type breeders business model.  Many of these rescue organizations are really “pet dealers”.

 

Now, some smaller backyard breeders, particularly in areas where breeder permits or kennel licenses are required, are circumventing the rescue organizations and regulations by establishing fake rescues. By presenting themselves as rescue organizations, these breeders avoid the appearance of selling animals directly and instead collect "adoption fees." The issue here is that these dogs are not true rescues animals; they are bred by the so-called rescue itself, allowing these breeders to exploit a loophole and commit fraud against consumers in New Jersey.[1]

 

Additionally, some rescue organizations transport puppies from southern states without bringing the mother dogs along. This practice allows breeders in those areas to continue using the mother for breeding, profiting off her without the expense or responsibility of her long-term care.  While this is not illegal, it is unethical, in our opinion.  These rescues are acting like online pet stores under the guise of a rescue. 

 

Unreputable rescue groups transport and adopt out puppies while leaving the mother behind at the breeding facility, promoting the puppies as "saved" or "rescued," when in fact, they were purchased[2]. This deceptive practice may violate New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act (N.J.S.A. 56:8-2) (NJSA_56:8-2_Fraud, 2023), which prohibits any act of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceptive advertising in connection with the sale of goods or services. Representing a purchased dog as "rescued" misleads the public and constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation. Under this statute, such deceptive claims could result in legal action, including penalties and restitution to affected parties.

 

The act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise (pets are property/merchandise in NJ) or real estate, or with the subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful practice.

 

Here is an example which represents just a small section of a much larger this issue is within the rescue industry. Since 2009, bidders associated with 86 rescue and advocacy groups, as well as shelters across the United States and Canada, have collectively spent $2.68 million to purchase 5,761 dogs and puppies from breeders at the nation’s two government-regulated dog auctions, both located in Missouri. According to invoices, checks, and other documents obtained by The Washington Post from an industry insider, rescuers have bought dogs from some of the same breeders who are the target of activist protests. This includes breeders who have been listed on the Humane Society of the United States’ "Horrible Hundred" or the "No Pet Store Puppies" database maintained by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, both of which spotlight breeders to avoid.

 

Even back then it was revealed that many rescuers have consistently offered these purchased dogs for adoption under the false pretense of being “rescued” or “saved.” Despite years of this deceptive practice, New Jersey has yet to take any meaningful action to stop it within our state. This ongoing inaction continues to allow unscrupulous rescue organizations to mislead the public and perpetuate a cycle of exploitation, all while claiming to save animals.

 

Since rescues are not subject to regular inspections or regulations, there is no consistent verification that Certificates of Veterinary Inspection are provided for each puppy. This lack of oversight increases the risk of disease transmission, as seen in cases like the Fox Brothers, who were eventually shut down by NJ Consumer Affairs due to similar practices.

 

Pennsylvania has recently updated its Dog Law to enhance the regulation of dog importation, aiming to safeguard animal health and public safety. Effective January 21, 2024, Act 18 of 2023 introduces several key provisions to address these concerns. First, dogs imported into Pennsylvania for sale or adoption must be accompanied by an Interstate Certificate of Veterinary Inspection, prepared by an accredited veterinarian, certifying the animal's health status. Additionally, the law mandates a 14-day isolation period for imported dogs intended for transfer of ownership.  This isolation period must be at an approved impoundment facility and the entity is responsible to pay the impoundment facility for the isolation period. This requirement ensures that any latent infectious diseases are identified before the dogs interact with other animals or humans.

The updated law also provides the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement with enhanced authority to enforce these regulations, including the ability to impose stiffer penalties for non-compliance. This includes addressing issues related to illegal kennels and ensuring that violators are held accountable. These measures are designed to prevent the spread of diseases, protect consumers, and ensure the welfare of dogs entering Pennsylvania. By implementing stricter importation requirements and bolstering enforcement capabilities, the state aims to maintain high standards of animal health and public safety. (AKC, 2023)

 

On the other hand, because of the investigation in 2018, the USDA announced that certain individuals, businesses, and nonprofit organizations would need to obtain a USDA license or registration to ensure that animals being transported were cared for in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act. (Regulate_NJ_Animal_Rescues, 2024) Historically, the Animal Welfare Act did not apply to rescue groups, but recent changes suggest that some rescue organizations involved in transporting animals may now need to obtain a license or register as transporters. Unfortunately, many rescue organizations outsource transportation services and claim that the transporter holds the necessary records, creating a loophole to evade responsibility. This further exacerbates the problem of unregulated transportation and unchecked health risks.

 

Despite the lack of current regulation, efforts have been made to introduce legislation requiring more accountability from animal rescues in New Jersey. Currently, NJSA 4:19-15.33 establishes a voluntary registry of animal rescue organizations and facilities. While the registry exists, participation is optional, which significantly limits the state’s ability to track and regulate these organizations effectively.

 

• There have been attempts to change this. For instance, Rocky’s Law[3], introduced in 2019, was named after a domestic animal that lost its life due to undisclosed behavioral issues from a rescue animal. Rocky’s Law aimed to make the rescue registry mandatory, requiring detailed record keeping, vaccinations, medical examinations, and full disclosure of an animal’s health and behavioral history. Similarly, the Rescue Animal Disclosure Act[4], introduced in 2021, sought to implement the same changes, emphasizing the importance of transparency in rescue operations.

 

• A2992[5], introduced in 2020, is another important piece of legislation that should be revisited, modified, and supported. This bill focuses on improving regulation and accountability for rescue organizations, addressing the gaps that allow unethical practices to continue. By revisiting A2992 and incorporating necessary modifications, New Jersey can take a significant step toward better protecting animals and ensuring that rescue groups operate with integrity.

 

While animal rescue groups are not regulated by state or local health departments unless they operate an animal shelter facility, they are still required to comply with animal cruelty statutes. However, the lack of enforced regulation and oversight creates significant issues, including fraudulent practices, health risks, and the unethical treatment of animals. Amending the law to make the rescue registry mandatory, revisiting A2992, and improving enforcement of existing statutes would enhance accountability, better protect consumers, and improve the overall welfare of the animals involved in these rescue operations.

 

Despite reports and documentation provided to authorities, operations such as Shake a Paw, NJ, and Pixie and Paws Rescue continue to operate, remaining unchecked.

 

[1] Ross Rescue, Trenton, NJ, used to breed Mastiff and now, it is reported, they breeder smaller dogs.  They are registered with the State of New Jersey.  

[2], One Paw at a Time in New Jersey has been reported to purchase puppies, leaving the mothers behind. (unconfirmed)

[3] Rocky’s Law 2019

[4] Rescue Animal Disclosure Act, 2021

[5] A2992, 2020 To improve rescue regulations