Breeding of Animals

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares96 Views

    LeShon Johnson, Ex-N.F.L. Running Back, Ran Major Dogfighting Kennel, U.S. Says

    by

    Federal investigators say that they seized 190 pit-bull-type dogs from the former player, who previously pleaded guilty to state dogfighting charges in 2004.The federal authorities said this week that they had broken up a major dogfighting kennel in Oklahoma led by the former National Football League running back LeShon Johnson, seizing 190 pit-bull-type dogs in what they described as the most ever taken from a single person in a federal case.In a news release, the Justice Department said on Tuesday that a 21-count indictment against Mr. Johnson, 54, had recently been unsealed in federal court in Muskogee, Okla. He was arrested on March 20 and arraigned the same day before being released, according to court documents.Mr. Johnson, who played for the Green Bay Packers, the Arizona Cardinals and the New York Giants in the 1990s, is facing felony charges of possessing and trafficking dogs for use in an animal fighting venture. If convicted, he could face up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each count.He previously pleaded guilty to state dogfighting charges in 2004 and received a five-year deferred sentence.“The F.B.I. will not tolerate criminals that harm innocent animals for their twisted form of entertainment,” Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, said in a statement. “The F.B.I. views animal cruelty investigations as a precursor to larger, organized crime efforts, similar to trafficking and homicides.”Courtney R. Jordan, a lawyer for Mr. Johnson, declined to comment on Wednesday.Investigators say that Mr. Johnson “selectively bred ‘champion’ and ‘grand champion’ fighting dogs — dogs that have respectively won three or five fights” as part of his criminal enterprise, which was known as Mal Kant Kennels and was based in Broken Arrow, Okla., and Haskell, Okla.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Justices’ ‘Disturbing’ Ruling in South Carolina Gerrymandering Case

      by

      More from our inbox:Questions for RepublicansThe Case Against the PurebredChatbot TherapyCriticism of Israel Caroline Gutman for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “In Top Court, G.O.P. Prevails on Voting Map” (front page, May 24):The action of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, anchoring the 6-to-3 decision to allow the South Carolina Legislature to go forward with redistricting plans that clearly marginalize African American representation in the state — and after a meticulous review by an appellate court to preclude the plan — is disturbing.The persistent erosion of voting rights and apparent denial that racism is still part of the fabric of American society are troubling.Surely there can be deference to decisions made by states; concocting “intent” to deny true representative justice in an apparent quest to return to the “Ozzie and Harriet” days of the 1950s seems too transparent an attempt to “keep America white again” — as they may perceive the challenge of changing demographics.This particular ruling cries out for the need to expand court membership.Raymond ColemanPotomac, Md.To the Editor:Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito presumes the South Carolina lawmakers acted “in good faith” in gerrymandering the voting district map for the purpose of favoring the Republicans, and not for racial reasons, an improbable rationale on its face.Astoundingly, he further reasons that the gerrymander is acceptable because it was for partisan rather than race-based reasons (acknowledging that redistricting based on race “may be held unconstitutional.”)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Pet Shop That Sold Sick and Hurt Puppies Will Repay Nearly 200 Customers

      by

      Shake A Paw agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general after investigators found that the Long Island business was selling puppies from so-called puppy mills.The owners of a Long Island pet store accused of knowingly selling hundreds of sick and injured puppies, including some that died days after being bought, will pay $300,000 to about 200 customers under a settlement announced by New York’s attorney general on Friday.The settlement resolves a lawsuit filed by the attorney general, Letitia James, in December 2021 after an investigation by her office determined that the store, Shake A Paw, was acquiring and selling puppies from so-called puppy mills, large-scale commercial breeders with reputations for abuse, inbreeding and filthy conditions.Ms. James’s inquiry also found that the store and its owners, Marc Jacobs and Gerard O’Sullivan, had failed to disclose animals’ serious medical conditions and had illegally refused to reimburse customers for veterinary bills incurred after they had been sold sick pets, according to court documents.In addition to repaying the $300,000, Mr. Jacobs and Mr. O’Sullivan agreed to stop misleading advertising including claims that puppies sold by Shake A Paw were the “healthiest” and from the “most trusted breeders”; to buy animals only from reputable breeders; and to provide customers with disclosures certifying the health of their puppies, according to court documents.All pet stores in New York will be prohibited from selling dogs, cats and rabbits starting in December under a law passed in 2022.Richard Hamburger, a lawyer for Shake A Paw, declined to comment late Friday. Erin Laxton, who bought her Chihuahua-dachshund mix, Merlin, at Shake A Paw in 2020, described the settlement as a “huge relief.” Ms. Laxton said Merlin had begun coughing the day she brought him home from Shake A Paw and had died of respiratory illnesses five weeks later, according to court documents.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More