Puppy loophole in Chicago could be closed
Official seeks end to practice, but pet shops push back
A Chicago alderman is trying to close a loophole in the city’s anti-puppy mill ordinance that has allowed some pet shops to sell pricey designer dogs from sham rescues tied to commercial dealers, a furtive practice exposed by a Tribune investigation.
Under a revamped ordinance introduced earlier this month by North Side Ald. Brian Hopkins, 2nd, stores only would be permitted to sell shelter dogs at a nominal fee. The price restrictions would make it harder for brokers and breeders to exploit the law, as some have done in recent years.
“I do have to give them credit for creativity,” Hopkins told the Tribune. “In hindsight, of course, there’s so much profit to be made and there’s so many people involved in this shady industry, they were not going to go away quietly.”
Chicago was among the first major cities in the country to pass a law that permitted pet shops to sell dogs only if they were obtained from government pounds, humane societies or rescue shelters.
The law went into effect in 2015 with the aim to prevent businesses from sourcing dogs from socalled puppy mills, largescale breeding facilities often criticized for poor conditions and mistreatment of the mother dogs. Another goal of the city law was to reduce the number of euthanized shelter dogs.
Though most store owners complied, a 2018 Tribune investigation found the loophole allowed three local pet stores to sell pricey puppies supplied by out-ofstate rescues in Iowa and Missouri that were closely linked to longtime commercial dealers.
In an arrangement that was not an express violation of the ordinance but ran counter to the spirit of the ban, these rescues had provided city shops each year with hundreds of purebred and designer-mix puppies, all of which came through kennels and properties owned by for-profit businesses or dealers, records show.
One southwest Chicago store, for example, acquired 765 purebred and designer puppies from a sham Iowa rescue and sold them for more than $1.1 million between 2016 and November 2018, according to the Iowa attorney general’s office.
Another city store sourced its puppies from that same Iowa business and sold a “rescued” goldendoodle to a customer for $3,600, records show.
Days after the Tribune’s report in May 2018, another Chicago alderman proposed legislation meant to close the loophole, but it failed to gain enough support. Even the animal rights advocates behind the original ordinance predicted the revisions would have trouble surviving a legal challenge because they likely violated interstate commerce laws by favoring local rescues over out-of-state ones.
Local efforts remained stagnant until this March, when Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller announced a settlement in which two so-called rescues in his state that supplied dogs to Chicago pet stores agreed to cease operations and pay $60,000.
Miller had sued the nonprofit groups, a commercial broker and their officers for fraudulent practices, accusing them of passing off commercially bred puppies as shelter animals.
The Iowa attorney general found that the two nonprofits — Hobo K-9 Rescue of Britt, Iowa, and Rescue Pets Iowa Corp. of Ottumwa — transferred at least 3,600 dogs to entities in Illinois, California, Florida, Missouri and New Jersey from September 2016 to September 2019.
They included Pomeranians, Shar-Peis, Alaskan malamutes, Yorkiepoos and other high-priced purebred and designer breeds.
Iowa officials alleged the owners of J.A.K.’S Puppies started Hobo K-9 Rescue in 2016 as a way to provide pricey pups to businesses in California and Chicago, where laws require pet stores to sell only shelter animals. Miller called the out-of-state operations “integral actors of a national puppy laundering ring.”
J.A.K.’S and Hobo K-9 were heavily cited in the Tribune report, as public records showed there was little distinction between the two north-central Iowa operations.
Other than acknowledging support for Iowa’s action, the Illinois attorney general’s office has remained quiet about the controversy. Authorities have declined to say if they are investigating further.
Hopkins said many consumers were duped. None of the pet stores are located in his ward, but he said constituents in his neighborhood have unknowingly bought dogs advertised as rescues.
“In many cases, these families really are victims,” he said. “They may love their dog, but the dog was not acquired in the manner in which the family was told. People think they’re buying a rescue dog when they’re actually paying money into a corrupt and inhumane system that has all these false facades and phony paperwork.”
Hopkins’ revamped language allows pet shop owners to show dogs from rescues and shelters but the store “shall not have any ownership or monetary interest in the animals displayed for adoption. The animals may only be transferred to an adopting individual for a nominal adoption fee.”
To close the loophole, the new language spells out that approved rescue groups must not have any affiliation with a commercial business such as a breeder or dealer.
“What we’re doing now is saying Chicago pet shops can sell dogs, but the dogs have to come from a legitimate rescue operation not affiliated with a commercial breeder and they can’t charge thousands of dollars the way the puppy mills do,” Hopkins said. “They basically charge you enough to cover their costs, a relatively modest fee.”
The three Chicago pet stores that still sell puppies have fought hard against the ordinance in the past, going so far as to wage an unsuccessful battle against the ban in federal court.
Jim Sparks Jr., co-owner of Park Pet Shop in the Mount Greenwood neighborhood, said he would like “a seat at the table” with Hopkins and wants the ordinance amended so that stores may buy from breeders directly. Sparks noted the stores are family owned and longtime staples of the community.
“We are facing the worst economic conditions due to this pandemic since the Great Depression and it would be a sad sight to see the 50+ employees that are working as essentials here in Chicago lose their jobs,” Sparks Jr. said in an email to the Tribune.
The two other pet store owners could not be reached for comment.
The Illinois Pet Lovers Association — which has pushed back against movements for similar statewide restrictions — said it is reviewing Hopkins’ proposal, but predicted change would be devastating to local pet shops.
“It also appears to impose a business model that is designed to close pet stores entirely and deprive consumers of the only regulated option when obtaining a pet,” IPLA President Carl Swanson said.
At the time of its passage, shopkeepers criticized the anti-puppy mill ordinance and said that typical rescue groups could never provide the high-end, purebred and designer mix puppies customers wanted. They also expressed concerns about their financial survival without the ability to sell those kind of dogs.
Hopkins argues store owners can make money through the sales of dog food and other supplies the consumer will need.
“We think that’s sufficient for them to continue to operate and a legitimate business won’t have an objection to this,” the alderman said.
Groups such as the Chicago-based the Puppy Mill Project and the Humane Society of the United States applauded the latest revision to the controversial law. They are hopeful it will close the loophole and withstand legal muster.
“This gives them the ability to go after those stores that are skirting the intent,” said Marc Ayers, the Humane Society’s Illinois director. “(The city) knew what these stores were doing but they didn’t have the authority to shut it down.”
Critics of the ordinance have previously proposed something similar to the state law, which allows stores to sell dogs provided by commercial breeders in good standing with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The city, though, has not backed down. Hopkins said he anticipates challenges to his proposal when it reaches public debate this summer.
“I imagine some of the same lawyers will be back,” he said. “There’s so much money in this industry. They can muster up the legal resources they need to push back against any efforts. But that’s fine. We have lawyers, too.”