Do you like this story?
Does the HSUS support *licensed* puppy mills?
By Gina Spadafori
November 2, 2007
It appears so. While writing about its recent puppy-mill investigation — coming soon to a fund-raising letter near you — HSUS president Wayne Pacelle blogs:
We found puppy millers selling to pet stores not registered with the USDA—a violation of federal law. We found animals in cramped, overcrowded and unsanitary conditions—a violation of state animal health standards. We also found one puppy mill operator who had been convicted of an unrelated animal cruelty charge. And we found untold breeders selling directly to the public over the Internet or through newspapers ads—breeders who escape regulation through a loophole in the Animal Welfare Act.
While I’m certainly not sorry that puppy mills of any kind have been shut down, Pacelle is being disingenuous in his support of “USDA breeders.” His own organization’s investigations going back some 25 years have more than made the case that a “USDA licensed breeder” IS a puppy mill.
The ethical small-scale hobby breeder — the kind animal experts recommend to anyone who chooses to buy a purebred dog or cat — is not licensed by the USDA. The USDA regulations require minimum standards of care that do not take into account the socialization needs of animals who are destined to be companions. (It’s the U.S. Department of Agriculture, folks, and puppies are livestock.) You can’t raise a litter in your kitchen if you’re a USDA licensed breeder. You can, however, run a massive breeding operation turning out unsocialized puppies with congenital defects.
Pacelle knows this, as much if not more than anyone. But he has such a wild hair to pass breeding bans like AB 1634 in California — which gives licensed puppy mills a pass while targeting reputable breeders — that he’s happy to spin the raids to suit his agenda.
Are there unlicensed breeders who should be shut down? You bet there are. Tons of backyard breeders, large and small, of the careless, clueless and greedy variety. But trumpeting as “good” a system that treats puppies as livestock and rewards high volume breeding with minimum standards of care is not the answer, nor is making reputable, small-scale breeders a casualty in sweeping breeding bans.
Good for the HSUS for bringing attention to this problem. But let’s start understanding the difference between a breeder who cares only about profit — whether big or small, with clean kennels or filthy ones — and those who are actively involved in breeding healthy, well-socialized companions and in preserving our working and heritage breeds.
I’d bet money that Pacelle has read “Redemption.” He’s ignoring it. Are you?
(Thanks, Jennifer, for the link.)
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Since “Redemption” contains a scathing indictment of HSUS, I don’t imagine Pacelle will be promoting it.
Comment by Laura — November 2, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Gina, thank you for writing about this here. Between legislative assaults, PETA’s “Breeders Kill Shelter Dogs” billboard insanity and this sort of subliminal indictment of all us “unlicensed” loophole leaping hobbyists it feels like duck and cover time!
No more duck and cover keep my head down though. I am proud to call many ethical hard working animal lovers both breeders and friends. If we ignore this and hope it will go away, we will lose our breeds and our right to have them.
I am sending copies of Redemption to friends and family and I am convinced that “the proof is in the pudding”. We can have a world with purebred dogs and save shelter and rescue animals and ferals. We just have to get that message out there.
Comment by Jennifer J — November 2, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
See >> http://terriermandotcom.blogsp.....isery.html
Remember that HSUS and the AKC both wink at each other, and that the AKC DEPENDS on puppy mills and pet store sales to off-set the $10 million a year net LOSS they have from underwriting dog shows.
Bottom line: 666,666 puppy mill “misery puppies” a year have to get registered by the AKC in order to pay the cost of rosette chasing.
Nothing new here at all; same-old, same-old.
Patrick
http://www.terrierman.com
Comment by PBurns — November 2, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
AKC registrations are down by over 40% since they peaked in the mid 1990s, and the primary reason is that most of the “high volume breeders” have bolted to their newly created puppy mill registries. It seems the public doesn’t care whose name is on the fancy “papers” they receive.
Comment by Laura — November 2, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
While HSUS fights against “unlicensed” breeders and supports breeding restriction legislation - they simultaneously fight against puppy mills. We can never forget that this is the same organization that has stated euthanasia is the most humane thing that can be done for shelter animals. Ultimately - it seems - the idea of any breeding of companion animals whatsoever is something that HSUS has a problem with. If all breeding is “licensed” we have the ultimate control over breeding… which could then easily be restricted further.
Unfortunately feral and free roaming cats - the animals that are REALLY dying in shelters at the greatest numbers - never got the HSUS memo.
Comment by Sue Cosby — November 2, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
I came across this blog while doing some searches on “Redemption”:
Redemption and Nativism
It’s interesting. The author of this blog cites another possible explanation for the AR groups’ desire to kill off dogs and cats in shelters. That explanation is something called “nativism” - the idea that undomesticated animals were here “first”, and that domesticated animals are therefore an aberration which should be eliminated.
Some quotes from the blog:
“To many animal rights activists and environmentalists who subscribe to nativism, domesticated pets represent a violation of ‘Mother Nature,’ or the living Gaia, which to them is the natural order of things.”
“in order to return to the ‘natural order’ of things, indigenous species should take precedent over human encroachment, which includes human domestication of animals, because wild (i.e. natural, indigenous), animals were there first.”
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 3, 2007 @ 5:25 am
Other Pat: do you know any environmental activists?
I do.
Most of them have pets.
And I have never heard ANY of them say the things you describe.
Very few environmentalists are “animal rights” activists” And few “animal rights” activisists can truly be called environmentalists.
It is true that in the case of protecting wildlife and habitat, native species take priority, though many environmentalists recognize the difficulty in determining what is “native” in some cases. Most environmentalists do place the ability of native species to survive higher than any “right” of a domesticated animal (such as feral pigs or cats) to live in the “wild”. Most are animal lovers.. but they do tend to believe that a species as a whole (or an ecosystem as a whole) is more important than any one individual animal. Most Western US environmentalists accept, however unwillingly, that wolves that prey on cattle must be killed for the sake of the recovery program.
Without this kind of viewpoint, our world would be limited to highly flexible adaptable generalist species (think Norway rats, roaches, house sparrows, cheatgrass) and we would lose a high percentage of animals and plants. That would be a much less diverse and rich world. And WE would lose on so many levels (including the medical and spiritual)
some animal rights extremists are biological illiterates, like the PETA type who release ranch raised minks into places where the native rodoent population has no experience with such effective predators and are decimated. And PETA as we know, favors killing shelter animals.
If you want to read what environmentalists believe, you should read THEIR blogs and writings, not that of people who are opposed
Comment by EmilyS — November 3, 2007 @ 7:58 am
I agree with EmilyS. There is a profound difference between having a preference for native species versus wanting all non-native species eradicated.
I am an environmentalist, and like most environmentalists, I want to see natural habitats maintained. Part of this is a preference for native species within their native habitats. IMO this is responsible stewardship of our world.
But I am in the trenches fighting against the AR assault on domestic animals.
There are environmental extremists who are also Animal Rights extremists who believe that all non-native species should be eradicated, and that includes the extinction of domestic animals.
In “Redemption”, Nathan Winograd touches on “nativism” in his chapter on feral cats. His point is that nativists wish to eradicate all feral cats while compassionate animal lovers do not. Yet he also makes the point that nativists and feral cat lovers should both support Trap/Neuter/Return. TNR is both humane toward the individual feral cats AND probably leads to a greater reduction in feral cat numbers than trap & kill efforts can realistically achieve.
Comment by Laura — November 3, 2007 @ 10:28 am
The arguement of exterminating wild bison herds in the West because they may have Brucelloisis that could contaminate herds of non native cattle is a case in point.The fight over the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone, and the increase of the grizzly population thanks to endangered species protection status and good management are other examples. We have a history of irradicating native predator species indiscriminately that interfere with our bottom dollar. I don’t think though that is the point behind Gina’s post, and I don’t want to be sidetracked.
Thanks to Gina and Christie, I have now read Nathan Winograd’s “Redemption”. Wayne Pacelle and Ingrid Newkirk were already at the top of my list of enemies to the Fancy. They can’t get any higher.
I was disgusted to find that USDAA’s Cynopsort 2007, taking place this weekend, is featuring HSUS. I can’t believe an organization devoted to sports with any dog regardless of breeding would include HSUS in it’s venue. I am ashamed of Ken Tasch, owner of United States Dog Agility Association.
Comment by Deb — November 3, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Deb, please make your views about HSUS known to Ken Tasch. He probably doesn’t know the dark side of HSUS. Perhaps you can suggest that he read “Redemption”. I believe that HSUS would lose nearly all of its support if people knew the facts about what they have been doing.
Comment by Laura — November 3, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
I let myself get suckered into making a donation to HSUS because they said on their website that it was for taking care of the Vick dogs. Fair enough. There are a lot of them and I knew that the costs would mount up quickly. There was a clear implication that they had at least some, if not all, of the dogs in their direct custody. Then, what do I read a couple of weeks later? HSUS has no shelter facilities of their own. Period. The dogs are actually in a number of east coast shelters unassociated with HSUS. So I go combing the website for contact info. to let them know how unhappy I am about being essentially swindled into giving them money and, guess what, it is impossible to contact them other than by snail mail. Guess they aren’t really interested in communicating with anyone, even a donor. Yeah, I know, I need to send a letter, but email is so seductively easy by comparison anymore. In any case, that’s it for me. Not only will I never, ever send them a damn dime again, but I will actively discourage anyone else from doing so. I think that they have gone over the edge in The Ends Justify The Means Dept.
Comment by Susan Fox — November 3, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
Although I’m no fan of the HSUS - and I’m another one who was duped into donating to them until I started finding out their actual agenda - I didn’t read this as an endorsement of USDA licensed puppy mills, but rather that the new VA mills had standards so abominably low that it was below even USDA spec. That’s not necessarily support.
Comment by John — November 3, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
HSUS not only wasn’t doing anything to care for the Vick dogs, HSUS argued that the Vick dogs should all be euthanized… sight unseen. I’m not sure but I think I read about a government investigation into whether HSUS broke the law with their Vick fundraising.
HSUS has been very effective in their exploitation of issues for fundraising purposes. Think about it, even if HSUS had been caring for the Vick dogs (which they weren’t) if you had $200 million in assets, would you need to put out a fundraising plea in order to take care of a few dozen dogs?
Comment by Laura — November 3, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
I think you are being a little hard on the HSUS. Their job is generally to wield the largest mallet aimed at the worst practitioners. Non-compliance makes the mallet larger, and the non-compying are probably amongst the worst as many are previously convicted. While HSUS may not be targeting the full scope of the problem I would in no way conclude that the approve of USDA-compliant mills. They are just choosing their battles—and unlike many smaller groups, they have some chance of winning them. And i say this as a person who doesn’t actively or philosophically support HSUS. But less mills is better, however it happens.
Comment by emily — November 5, 2007 @ 8:25 am
At issue here is not that less mills is better however it happens. Less puppy mills, whether USDA or not, WOULD be better, no question.
The problem here is that the wording of the blog notes that USDA mills must conform to the Animal Welfare Act. If someone does not know much about mills then they’d think that that means that the USDA mills must not be so bad.
Then consider that HSUS is now throwing alot of weight behind AB1634 for 2008. AND AB 1634 EXEMPTS totally USDA mills. Combine that with the fact that AB1634 proponents kept screaming last year that all breeders were unregulated, unlicensed tax cheats and pretty soon you get a perfect storm of Unlicensed bad, licensed good.
Of course the vast majority of hobby breeders, working dog breeders etc, the ones who conduct themselves in an ethical manner CANNOT be licensed. Hobbies that do not make money cannot get a business license and probably 98% of hobby breeders in California could not get a commercial kennel license due to zoning. Additionally although some localities may issue “hobby kennel” licencses, none offer hobby breeders licenses.
if the HSUS and the pro AB1634 crowd convince lawmakers that all breeders should be “licensed” then even if you don’t outlaw dog breeding, you make it immpossible for virtually anyone to operate legally in California or anywhere else. The DDAL tried unsuccessfully a few years back to force the USDA to inspect and license every one who bred even ONE litter from their home. That is the “loophole” Wayne Pacelle mentions here and there by implies that anyone who breeds a single puppy and sells it is somehow getting away with something illegal or unseemly.
If they can make it look like anyone who breeds a dog without being a regulated licensed breeder is somehow unseemly and unethical and seedy, we are sunk. PETA is doing the hard sell bad cop of this, HSUS is doing it soft sell. They wanty all breeding stopped and getting lawmakers and the public to think that all breeding must be government controlled is a big part of that. The ONLY source for puppies will be USDA mass producers. Wayne Pacelle knows that AB1634 exempts USDA misery puppy producers yet is pushing the bill and quietly giving “licensed” misery a pass for now.
Comment by Jennifer J — November 5, 2007 @ 11:18 am
One of the problems is semantics. It seems difficult for people to get around good breeder and back yard breeder and puppy mill breeder. The cat people do it by referring to one another as showing breeders or showing fanciers. I propose a gentle slide to calling responsible breeders “fanciers” or “breed fanciers” rather than the generic breeders. Many responsible breeders, fanciers, do not show but compete in other venues.
At the very least it will take a small time to have the AR group realize that there is a difference. Breed fanciers are not the same as the “evil breeders’ also called Greedy breeders.
Comment by Tam Cordingley — December 1, 2007 @ 7:50 am