Photo: Rows of wire cages at a puppy mill Gary McDuffee owned with his ex-wife, Wanda. This kennel had a 5-year history of USDA violations that were not disclosed in McDuffee's application for a permit to run his new facility. On Thursday, April 5, 2007, when the Morrison County Board voted unanimously to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Gary McDuffee, they told the press that they had no other choice. They said that, because the permit was a land use permit, they could only look at land use issues when considering the permit, and, therefore, they had no grounds for refusing McDuffee a permit. But a closer review of this case suggests otherwise: that the Commissioners had ample opportunity, and legal justification, to refuse McDuffee's permit. Legal justifications for refusing the permit include the following: Along with McDuffee's original permit application, he provided a letter written by veterinarian Dr. Charles Extrand stating that McDuffee's previous kennel was clean, well-run, and that it had always been in compliance with USDA regulations. However, documents were uncovered showing a 5-year history of USDA violations when McDuffee operated that facility. The violations included: cages that were too small, cages that had not been property cleaned, cages that were deteriorating and composed of sharp and dangerous materials, selling puppies that were too young, use of expired medications, failing to label animals being shipped as "live cargo", and other serious violations. It was also learned that McDuffee has been operating for about a year at his new facility without being in compliance with Minnesota State Animal Cruelty Statutes. These statutes require McDuffee to provide dogs a minimum of 20 minutes of free-choice exercise outside of their cages daily. McDuffee has neither the facilities or the staff to comply with this law. This fact was not contested by McDuffee, his attorneys, or any of his staff. Not only did the County fail to consider valid, legal issues when considering McDuffee's CUP, they actually by-passed State law when they granted the permit. Minnesota Statutes require the completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) before granting a CUP. Morrison County has now granted McDuffee this CUP twice, without ever completing an EAW. They have, therefore, failed to take into consideration an unknown number of land-use issues that could arise if an EAW were to be completed. To be very clear: While Morrison County is claiming they HAD to give McDuffee a permit because this is a land-use issue, they have failed to follow legal procedure for reviewing and granting land-use permits. Animal Ark, and others teamed up to fund an appeal of McDuffee's original CUP. That case ended up going to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, where they ruled that Morrison County was "arbitrary and capricious" in granting McDuffee his permit. They threw out McDuffee's original permit, and demanded that Morrison County take another look at this case. We believe it is time to appeal this new CUP. The legal fees and other expenses related to that appeal are expected to be around $60,000. The appeal needs to be filed within 60 days of the new CUP. That gives us 60 days to raise $60k. Minnesotans need to stand up and put an end to this unregulated, dirty industry, and hold officials accountable when they support or enable it to continue. Please DONATE TODAY!

What You Can Do: Donate to the Cause Email this Story to Family & Friends Contact Morrison County at: Morrison County Government Center 213 SE 1st Ave. Little Falls, MN 56345 Tim Houle County Administrator (320) 632-0295 timh@co.morrison.mn.us Thomas Wenzel Commissioner District 1 (320) 749-2288 or [email] Jeffrey Schilling Commissioner District 2 (320) 745-2617 or [email] Gene Young Commissioner District 3 (320) 2537 or [email] Donald Meyer Commissioner District 4 (320) 468-6096 or [email] Duane Johnson Commissioner District 5 (320) 547-2408

Have something to say about this article? Share Your Comments with our readers. Or, leave a message on the Animal Wise Radio Comment Line by calling toll-free (888) 668-0687.

Comments from readers:

On 06/07/2007 Mike Fry said: To Carollida Hi there, As Ellen said, the fees are for legal expenses. We would never consider purchasing dogs from puppy mills. There are "rescue" groups that do that. We do not condone such activities, because it only rewards the puppy mills with what they want most, cash.

On 06/07/2007 Ellen Weinstock said: the "why" of stopping puppy mills Hi, Carollida: Thanks for asking. Yes, the money Ark is raising is for legal fees. Unfortunately, the Morrison County government seems bent on allowing this puppy mill to operate, even though there has been national outcry. People who are concerned about the horrors of puppy mills, as well as people who live near the operation and are concerned about noise, pollution, and the like, are banding together to keep them from it. Those of us who work in animal rescue and sheltering are particularly concerned because these operations often create many sick and badly socialized animals for whom we have to work so hard to find homes. So it adds to the problem of overpopulation and increases the number of animals who are killed for lack of space in our region. The details of the legal situation are above on this page. For general information on why puppy mills are a problem, check out this fact sheet from the Humane Society of the US.

On 06/07/2007 Carollida said: funds So the 60 grand you need is for legal fees and not for purchancing these dogs right? I am new to puppmills and why they are bad ect. I would love to help so I have to ask before doing so. thank you.

On 05/27/2007 bryanna swoboda said: shut that puppy mill down!! I agree that puppy mill should be shut down. Becuase they are treating those animals poorly and they should be better taken care of becuase animals do have feelings. And I love animals very much, becuase when my Humane Society burnt down (Chippewa Falls Humane Society) I was hurt that those animals died and plus a week before it burnt down I had gotten my cat (Hazel) from there. And it hurt me really bad that all those animals that I say there died. And I have always loved animals. So I donated food, blanket, toys, 100's of gordy reciepts( they brought them in to gordy and given money for the reciepts),leashs, treats, catnip. And much more and so I am on your side I believe that puppy mill should be shut down immediately. So I hope you guys succeed in shutting down that puppy mill.

On 05/25/2007 Mike Fry said: To Kacey Back off? Not likely. If you really believe that Morrison County had no reason to refuse McDuffee's permit, you probably have not read the court ruling from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. In that ruling, one of the highest courts in the State told Morrison County that they had been arbitrary and capricious in the granting of McDuffee's Conditional Use Permit. The decision of the court effectively voided that CUP. The fact that McDuffee provided false information on his permit application would have been enough for the county to refuse a permit. The fact that he was out of compliance with USDA requirements for 5 or more years would have been enough, too. But, perhaps the most compelling reason they had this time to refuse a permit to McDuffee was when it was learned during the public hearing that McDuffee had been operating at his NEW FACILITY (the very one for which they granted him the permit) without complying with Minnesota State Cruelty Statues... In the face of McDuffee's flagrant noncompliance with USDA and State laws, what makes Morrison County think he will comply with their "conditions", which they have no real method of monitoring? Is it too much to ask a large-scale breeder to operate within the few laws we have in Minnesota? Is it too much to expect County Commissioners to show respect for the law? I don't think so. So when McDuffee's lawyer sent us a threatening letter, we didn't "back off". We intend to see this through until the few laws in our State that protect animals, and the neighbors to businesses like McDuffees, are followed. We have never said or suggested that anyone was a "monster". At the same time, we do expect people, especially elected officials, to show respect for the law. We are well within our legal right to appeal this CUP, and have very solid grounds for doing so. This appeal process is not a threat, in any way to anyone. We are simply exercising our legal right within the legal framework provided by our State legal system.

On 05/25/2007 Kacey said: Back off!! You all need to back off! The board members of Morisson county are not evil! Most of them own pets themselves and value them very much. One board member has older kids with many pet dogs that care greatly for all animals. You are looking to make them into monsters in which they are not. Legally, they had no reason to deny the permit at the given time. Wether or not it is a popular vote dose not count. The county must do what is legal and fair to all members of the county. I can understand those who are upset, but you need to back off!!! and quick calling the board members monsters!!!! You are a monster for trying to attack them with your threats!!

On 05/11/2007 cathy skalicky said: my pup from McDuffee My Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, Charlee, is 4 years old today! Healthy and happy, I hope. I purchased him at the Pet Ranch in Burnsville Center. I normally do not buy from pet shops. I paid $900. But, a dog lover and rescuer, I just couldn’t resist. I usually [adopt] from rescue centers. He was pretty sick (that’s the mom in me!) He smelled, his eyes were all goopy, he had diahrea and coccidiosis, on the form it said he was susceptible to hypoglycemia, he only weighed 4 pounds! I sent several letters to the pet store and the Prior Lake Pet Hospital who examines their pets. I still have all the letters and e-mails. Because I was supposed to get "papers" on Charlee. It took a while. Was I SURPRISED WHEN I WATCHED THE NEWS AND SAW THE MCDUFFEES ON IT. That was Charlee’s breeder! So, if I can help in any way, I will. Financially I cannot other than $10 or $20. .I don’t make much. Like I said, I have all the paperwork and will gladly send it on. Even from the AKC! This McDuffie needs to be shut down! I don’t even want to know how Charlee’s and his mom’s first few months were.

On 05/09/2007 Barbara Fleischhaker said: It is worth it! I am familar with legal defense costs - and the $60,000 that is projected is a very reasonable amount of money for the legal work involved. Animal Ark has been generous in terms of getting the word out but are not compromising their own mission - and I appreciate that! We all must step forward financially to continue this fight! I have worked with Dog Rescue and have helped 12 Puppy Mill survivors in the past year. I can tell you many stories of the horrors they suffered and heartwarming resilience of these dogs. Your imagination can not encompass the tragic circumstance, nor can your heart feel the joy of seeing a dog play with it's first toy (something that can take months to happen). Please contribute what you can and believe that we can make a difference for these animals only by giving the legal system and law enforcement the legal resources to prevent and stop the conditions from existing.

On 04/24/2007 Mike Fry said: Answer to Jeannine Hi Jeannine, Thanks so much for your questions. There are other groups collecting money, including (but not limited to) Best Friends Animal Society, Animal Rights Coalition and the Minnesota Humane Society (not affiliated with the newly merged "Animal Humane Society"). The "funds to date" we are showing on our site included money donated or pledged from these sources. An appeal WILL be going forward. That is not at issue. The question is: who is willing to step up to help fund the appeal. We hope everyone reading this will see the value in helping! Thanks again!

On 04/23/2007 Jeannine said: What happens if we can't raise $60k? What happens if the money is not raised? Are there other groups collecting money that we can combine our funds with to get to the $60k that is needed?

On 04/16/2007 Roxanne said: Horror of Puppy Mills Here is a link to another irresponsible breeder in Canada. The pictures are quite terrifying so do not follow the link unless you need convincing this $60,000 is a small price to pay in the battle Animal Ark and others are fighting. www.spcamontreal.com

On 04/12/2007 Mike Fry said: Legal expenses to date Hi Julie, I can give you some general numbers. But, before I do that I would like to explain that Animal Ark is not a plaintiff in this case. We have also not hired the attorney working on the case. We are simply supporting the case with whatever fund-raising we can. Prior to the first cases moving forward, a typical estimate I heard from people in the legal field for an appeal to the Court of Appeals was about $200,000. The total bill for the three cases that have gone on so far has been close to that number. However, what the attorneys have required to have been paid so far toward that bill is actually around $50,000. Of that, Animal Ark donors have contributed about $9,000. In short, the legal team has been exceptionally skilled and generous. We owe them a HUGE debt of gratitude for taking this case and for being so diligent with it. As a result of this case, other counties in Minnesota are considering, or have already passed, much more restrictive ordinances relating to puppy mills. When Sherburne County passed an ordinance that limits the number of breeding females that can be housed on one property last year, they cited this legal case as part of the justification for doing so. Other counties, including Morrison, are now looking at Sherburne's ordinance as a model. What we are doing is actually setting a new example of how to clean up puppy mills. The Minnesota Court of Appeals case is already considered, by many in the legal field, as ground-breaking. We are, therefore, potentially affecting puppy mills all over the country. It is some of the best money we have spent, in my opinion, and we are thrilled to be supporting a knowledgeable, skilled and professional legal team that is doing outstanding work.

On 04/12/2007 Julie said: Cost of Legal Action Thank you for your explanation Mike. You say an add'l $60,000.00 is needed to move forward. Can you tell us how much has been spent up to this pont on this case? Are the attorney fees being offered at a discounted or donated rate at all? Julie

On 04/11/2007 Mike Fry said: Response to Julie Hi Julie, You are right. $60,000 is a lot of money. But, in the grand scheme of things, we believe it is reasonable. A legal challenge at the Court of Appeals is a pretty big deal. It is a much bigger deal than a simple court case. Most people I have talked to with experience in this sort of thing believe this is a very reasonable fee. It is true that $60,000 would pay for a lot of spay/neuter. Actually, it would pay for about 600 surgeries. Ironically, that is about the same number of animals we are working to get out of McDuffee's facility. From a breeding/pet overpopulation perspective, a case could be made that on a per-animal basis, the $60,000 spent on this legal fight could be more cost effective. If we are successful, we can save the animals at McDuffee's place a life of hell. We can also get them out of the breeding pool. At the same time, this fight is teaching a lot of people about puppy mills. So, we are getting a lot for the investment. To date, Animal Ark has not spent that much of our own money. It has been fortunate that other organizations have been partnering to help to raise funds. Best Friends Animal Society, Animal Rights Coalition, and others have contributed funds to date. We expect the same will be true of the needed $60,000 for this round. I so strongly believe this is money well spent that I have contributed a sizable portion from my own salary to this effort. There are two other very good pieces of news about this: many people are stepping up do help with donations - many people who have not historically donated to Animal Ark. Therefore, I believe this is not an either/or sort of issue. All of our spay/neuter programs are still going full speed. If you would prefer to see your donations used for spay/neuter, we would very much appreciate your designating your dollars to the Twin Cities Pet Fix or to the Feline Feral Friends programs. At the same time, we believe it is vitally important for Minnesotans to step up to help clean up puppy mills in our State. These awful facilities have thrived for too long here. We need to take a stand to put an end to the days when these facilities operated without any consequences.

On 04/11/2007 Julie said: Legal Expenses Hi - how much has Animal Ark spent on legal fees to date? And $60,000 sounds like an exceedingly high amount to file an appeal. Is there a way to get this done for less? This is a lot of money and it could help fund a lot of low cost or free spay/neuters for the metro community.

On 04/10/2007 Mary said: Vet In the article there is a vet that had written a letter for McDuffee, can anyone locate this person? Does he exist?