“Legal War on the Amish”: Attorney Fights For Breeder Who Killed 4 Unsold Puppies

After last week’s animal cruelty case, I really wasn’t seeking to write more on Amish-owned dogs coming to harm, but here we are.

Today we see a report on an Amish dog breeder named John S. Stoltzfus Jr. The Lancaster County resident got himself into trouble after it was learned that, in late 2023, he had killed four Sheepadoodle puppies which weren’t selling.

From the report at Lancaster Online:

Stoltzfus, 48, a New Holland dog breeder, is facing four felony aggravated cruelty to animals charges for killing Tammy, Terry, Todd and Tom. He later laid their bodies in a compost pile on his property, police said.

“Black puppies are not selling…” Stoltzfus told two witnesses, saying he “put them to sleep,” according to police.

Stoltzfus’ attorney told PennLive: “The idea that the Amish would be mean to their animals is ridiculous,” Robert Barnes said. “That they’re mean, cruel or violent is preposterous.”

The attorney working for the defendant is Robert Barnes, who seems to specialize lately in handling high-profile Amish cases in Pennsylvania.

You might recognize Barnes as the same lawyer who took up the case of Amish raw milk products seller Amos Miller against the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, and who later defended Reuben King, the Lancaster County Amishman charged with selling firearms without a federal license.

Stoltzfus’ attorneys have twice tried to get him into a diversionary court program, an alternate judicial route, “to resolve the charges without serious consequences.” The Lancaster County District Attorney has twice said no.

What Happened in 2023

John S. Stoltzfus Jr., now 48, was breeding Sheepadoodles, a Poodle-Old English Sheepdog cross, and putting them up for sale online. Specialty breeds are often quite profitable, and breeders, Amish and non-Amish alike, are drawn to them for this reason.

On October 30, 2023, Stoltzfus called an employee of the puppy listing site handling his dogs and asked to have four of them removed.

When asked why, he reportedly said the dogs were black, and “black puppies are not selling.” In fact, he’d already “put them to sleep” himself, without involving a vet. At the time, the dogs were reportedly 16 to 20 weeks old, weighing about 25 pounds each.

Police came two days later, after the website manager reported it. Stoltzfus told them, according to charging documents, that “We have a way of doing it. We took good care of them.”

Neither the prosecution nor the defense has publicly stated exactly how the puppies were killed, though his lawyers say, as it’s reported in the piece, that “Stoltzfus humanely, painlessly and instantaneously euthanized the puppies in a manner consistent with Pennsylvania law.”

“Tradition For Centuries”

Under Pennsylvania law, small domestic animals can only be euthanized by a licensed veterinarian or a licensed technician using an approved injectable solution. At commercial kennels, a licensed veterinarian must be present.

That didn’t happen here. Barnes argues the manner in which Stoltzfus put the puppies down was humane, painless, and instantaneous. And that the real issue is the missing vet, not the killing itself.

More of a technical matter, it sounds. And by treating it as a criminal act, they’re encouraging more crime? That’s what this sounds like:

Stoltzfus put the puppies down in his own backyard by himself, and the district attorney’s office is treating the case like a crime. But all that serves to do is teach the Amish not to call the local veterinarian or police, Barnes said.

“Don’t call anyone because they’ll try to get you imprisoned,” Barnes said. “It’s exactly the wrong message you should be sending.”

I’m a little confused by what’s being argued here, maybe I’m just slow, or something was left out. I think if Stoltzfus had called the vet beforehand, there wouldn’t be a legal problem here. That seems easy enough to comprehend. There was also this eye-raising bit:

“Its an increasing concern in the Amish community,” Barnes said. “They don’t know any given day whether something that’s been their tradition for centuries is something that might get them thrown into prison.”

That “tradition for centuries” language is interesting. By using that language, Barnes is re-framing this as a bigger discussion over “Amish ways”, things that run deep in a traditional culture — one that has a lot of positive to speak for it.

But is Barnes suggesting that convenience-killing Sheepadoodles, a 20th-century designer dog, has been Amish “tradition for centuries”?

Or, is it just killing any commercially-bred puppies that the market doesn’t want “tradition for centuries”?

Or is “tradition for centuries” more about traditional ways of treating and disposing of livestock, which, despite what some Amish breeders still seem to think, puppies and dogs decidedly aren’t.

Barnes also says that “The idea that the Amish would be mean to their animals is ridiculous. That they’re mean, cruel or violent is preposterous.”

I guess that is what you want your lawyer to say in a situation like this, but I’d be wary of making a blanket claim like that. Just like I wouldn’t make a similar sweeping positive claim about “the Amish” as a whole. There are bad apples in every bunch, and granting a group categorical guilt or innocence is not the way to go.

Stoltzfus Was Rejected Twice From the Program

The program Stoltzfus’s attorneys have been trying to get him into is called Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition, or ARD. It’s a form of what’s known as diversionary court – a track that steers first-time, non-violent offenders away from a standard prosecution.

In a nutshell, if you complete the requirements, the charges are typically withdrawn. For Stoltzfus, ARD would mean avoiding a felony record.

It would also make a big difference on his potential for breeding dogs in future. ARD can only legally give a two-year ban on owning dogs; a felony conviction can be seven years per count.

Stoltzfus applied in August 2025. The DA’s office rejected him in October. His attorneys asked for reconsideration and were turned down again this February.

District Attorney Heather Adams reasons that “This longer period is best for ensuring the behavior does not occur again.”

For his part, Barnes disputes that a conviction is even likely. He told PennLive there’s “a very high chance of acquittal” if the case goes to trial. He’s also planning to file motions to dismiss based on religious discrimination.

A Special Court For The Amish?

There’s another piece of the story worth noting. Barnes and his co-counsel Bradford Geyer are floating the idea of a diversionary court specifically for Amish defendants. Such courts exist across Pennsylvania to address various issues and groups. Here’s more on that:

Diversionary court programs vary across Pennsylvania. Some counties offer mental health court, drug court, and some, like Dauphin County, offer diversionary veteran’s court to address county-specific needs.

So why can’t Lancaster County, which has the biggest per-capita population of Amish than anywhere else in America, have an Amish diversionary court? It’s a question Barnes raises.

ARD isn’t the perfect vehicle to further outreach efforts into the Amish community, Adams said. She applauded the idea but said there is no way for the probation department to supervise and enforce the requirements of the program.

I wasn’t aware such courts even existed, but maybe there’s something to this. However this shouldn’t be a way for Amish people to dodge following laws they don’t like, using (read: abusing) the religious freedom argument where it doesn’t really apply, for instance.

To their credit, Stoltzfus’ defense team expresses a desire to help educate communities about the legal issues involved in such matters:

Barnes and Geyer are pushing for a “global solution” that educates insular pockets within the Amish community on what the law says about euthanasia. They’re suggesting the district attorney’s office collaborate with them on outreach.

That leaves aside of course the question of whether killing unsold puppies is good for anyone involved in the breeding business (more on that below).

“Legal War on the Amish”?

In his statements to the press, Barnes has taken the framing well beyond just this case, telling PennLive:

“The Lancaster County DA’s office is waging a legal war on the Amish. They’re unwilling to extend to the Amish things they extend to those accused of real crimes.”

“Legal war on the Amish” are strong words. But I am not surprised he is casting it that way, as he appears to have become the lawyer of choice for Amish in the county who end up on the wrong side of the law in their business practices.

It probably starts to seem that way if you’re repeatedly defending Amish from the same community, and using the consistent narrative of Amish “traditional ways of life” being under threat — as was a part of the messaging around the Amos Miller raw milk case. I guess we’ll see if he succeeds in making this a bigger issue than just this individual case.

Adams, for her part, is standing by the charges, saying that “This case is particularly troubling as Lancaster County sees a lot of animal abuse surrounding the sale of dogs.”

Lancaster County has been dealing with issues around dog breeders, largely the Amish, for decades now. Leaving aside the technical question of whether a vet is present for euthanization or not, in my view, reputable breeders among the Amish should really come out against the practice of killing puppies that don’t sell.

Even from a cold business perspective, one Amish breeder doing this is going to (and already has) taint the reputation of all Amish breeders, as it is portrayed as an “Amish problem”.

So that means allowing the puppies you don’t sell to live – and doing something humane with them. And yes, that will eat into profitability. Maybe that means some people need to find a new sideline.

So if you have to kill puppies that don’t sell as quickly as you’d like, maybe you shouldn’t be in this business. Again, Amish aren’t the only ones who do this, I’m sure. But it has potential to make all Amish breeders look bad, because the Amish are an easily-identifiable group.

This works in their favor in some cases – e.g. Amish furniture makers’ reputation helps all Amish furniture makers – and against them in others, such as this one. So those in the community who don’t support this practice should speak against it, privately in their circles, if not publicly.

Get the Amish in your inbox

Join 15,000 email subscribers. No spam. 100% free

 

 

 

Subscribe