Do you like this story?

Hate, fear and the politics of puppy-mills

By Gina Spadafori

July 18, 2009

Share on Facebook Tweet this Google Buzz Digg It Share on technorati Stumble upon it Add to delicious

For many years, the author and broadcaster Roger Caras was the oh-so-serious  baritone voice of the best known of American dog shows, the Westminster Kennel Club‘s, which is arguably the only show most people have heard of or much care about, at least in passing.

Year after year, a huge round of applause would sweep Madison Square Garden following a  single statement from Mr. Caras:

“Not one of these dogs of these dogs,”  Roger Caras would intone,”came from a pet store.”

These days, a sizable contingent of the dog-show world wouldn’t be cheering; they’d be booing him as an “animal-rights dupe” — or worse.  That is, if he were even allowed to say anything negative at all  about pet stores.

After all, the American Kennel Club — which sanctions dog shows, including Westminster — has repeatedly tried to get the ethical breeders that make up its member clubs to accept that they need to embrace the easy registration dollars of puppy-milling scum to underwrite the costs of putting on dog shows and other competitive events. Their efforts have been largely unsuccessful, which is one reason why puppy-millers made up their own registries — and why they have jumped on the mixed-breed bandwagon, pumping Puggles galore into pet stores.

Which is not to say that all otherwise good breeders hate it when the AKC runs after the puppy-mill money. Bolstered by anger and mostly, by fear, these breeders have convinced themselves that defending high-volume breeders is the only way to protect their own dogs in the long run. And they’re so deep into their own paranoia they even deny that puppy-mills exist at all.

I knew this, of course, but I didn’t know quite how angry the spittle-spewing defenders of keeping dogs as factory-farmed livestock were until I did something pretty normal for me: I mentioned a week ago (on Twitter) that I was going to a puppy-mill protest.

Now, I knew that this would generate a fair amount of outrage, since the monthly picketing is organized by Jennifer Fearing  of the Humane Society of the United States.  And immediately, the Tweets jumped back at me, mostly bashing the “H$U$” (as the folks who always write “H$U$ and PETA” together as if they were one) always type it. One of the Tweeters even cautioned me to look both ways crossing the street.

But, hey, I expected that (well, aside from the death threat — that was just a bonus). After all, there are people who get a vein throbbing on their forehead when any number of groups are mentioned, from the HSUS to the NRA to the Sierra Club to Ducks Unlimited. (You might be surprised to know which two of the four I am a member of, although those who know I take my working retrievers out to actually work now and then will probably guess right.)

But after the first round of knee-jerk reactions, I was moderately surprised to see people tweeting that:

  • The term “puppy-mill” was made up by PETA (nope, it pre-dated the founding of that group, and has been around for almost as long as I have, in the neighborhood of half a century).
  • The HSUS makes up all the things it says about puppy mills, and stages the pictures. (Um, no, I can in half a day find former legislative investigators and independent journalists who have seen the worst,  on site, and reported on it for more than 40 years.)
  • Some breeds would rather live in kennels. (Even if you grant that’s true — a stretch for the most social of domestic animals  — why are they then being bred in high volume for pets, knowing that most people keep their dogs in the house?)

And most egregrious:

  • A puppy raised in a high-volume commercial kennel is as good a pet prospect as one raised in a home that provides genetic screening, proper socialization (both intentional through handling and visits and environmental through taking in the sights, sounds and smells of living with people), early training and a mother unstressed by the din and smell of spending an entire life in a cage.
  • Dogs from high-volume operations are “necessary” because everyone doesn’t want a “show dog.” (I hardly know where to start: While commercial kennels are all about the profit — and nothing else — almost all ethical breeders work from the idea that every puppy born will need to be a healthy family pet before that dog will be anything else, be it an agility champion, a show champion or a companion hunting dog.  Breeding dogs for dough only works if you’re cutting out everything that defines  a good breeder, including serving as a lifelong reference for your puppy-buyers and always being there to take a dog you bred back, no matter what.  Good breeders don’t cut corners; commercial ones must to make a buck.

I  agree with the HSUS — and indeed any person with a heart — that filthy, high-volume breeding operations are inhumane. And I believe strongly that even cleaned-up high-volume operations are  not conducive to everything we know about how a dog becomes a healthy, well-adjusted pet. As long as an industry for the “manufacture” of family pets is overseen by the U.S. Department of AGRICULTURE, that’s pretty much all you need to know about why high-volume kennels and their retailing and Internet fronts are not a good choice when you’re looking for a puppy. (Not to mention: What about dogs used as breeding stock for life? Don’t they deserve the life of a family pet?)

That said,  I would actually prefer that we end high-volume breeding operations by starving them of business, because legislative answers too often seem to aim at the wrong targets. Not to mention legislators are often misguided by those  people who hate breeders so much that they don’t see a difference between ethical ones and puppy-millers, or by those who are so deep in animal-rights philosophy that they are really pushing the PETA agenda of no domesticated animals at all.

By the way, there IS a difference between HSUS and PETA, and that agenda is it.

With puppy-mills, real change will come only when everyone knows what’s behind those cute puppies in the pet-store window or on the pictures on an Internet site.

Laws don’t work as well as changing attitudes do.

We need to help people realize that the only sensible and ethical options are to get a pet from a shelter or rescue group, or from a  breeder who raises puppies in the home with all the proven advantages of constant socialization and early training.

As Christie says, “Get a family pet from a family home,” and that pretty much rules out any commercial operation, even the cleaned up high-volume production facilities that get pointed out as “models” from time to time. It even points out the importance of shelters developing strong foster programs to get their animals the socialization and training they need to improve their chances of making it into a forever home.

The day high-volume commercial breeding ends is the day when every pet lover is to ashamed to admit a  puppy came from a pet store. And judging from the honks of support vs. rude gestures I saw at the picketing  (a couple dozen honks in support vs. one “Get a life!”), that day isn’t too far off.

As for why I’m standing with the HSUS — a group I have sharply disagreed with on other issues — it’s simple:  I need to stand up against everything that’s wrong about puppy mills, and everything that’s right about good breeders.

I refuse to sell out animals who need me, and potential pet-owners who deserve better than the sick, unsocialized and difficult to train animals who come from high-volume operations. I also refuse to sell out good breeders, which is why I politely turned down a sign that read, “Adopt, don’t buy” because I think buying a puppy from a reputable, compassionate breeder is an ethical, intelligent option.

It’s long past time to find the common ground and work together. A first step would be for animal advocates to understand that all breeders aren’t the same, and for breeders to drop the “with us or agin’ us” attitude that makes it easy for the breeding ban people to lump the ethical in with the cruel.

And if your HSUS hate is so strong that you would rather be on the wrong side of this issue, well,  shame on you.

Now, here’s the picture. I’m on the left, with Jennifer Fearing of the HSUS. I may well be the first puppy-mill protester who has also been to Crufts and Westminster, but I shouldn’t be the last:

jennifer_gina_petland

Filed under: animals: pets,puppy mills — Gina Spadafori @ 8:15 am

138 Comments »

  1. Not a dog owner but—-

    Roger Caras was my HERO.

    He did so much for animals! His books are great!

    No finer man walked on this earth is my humble opinion.

    Comment by Colorado Transplant — July 18, 2009 @ 8:31 am

  2. I met him and his wife a couple of times, briefly. They were wonderful, classy and kind people.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 18, 2009 @ 8:38 am

  3. I too am tired of being told I’m a PETA dupe every time I go to a puppy mill protest. I’ve cared for far too many products of this deplorable industry and I really can’t imagine any person who actually loves dogs defending them once they’ve actually met some of the sad cast offs, the breeding dogs that suffer their entire lifetime to pump out product. The ones in the best shape are sadly fearful and unsocialized, the ones in the worst shape have horribly painful and chronic medical problems that go ignored for years as long as they can produce more puppies. Horrible dental disease including completely rotted out jaws, blindness from untreated eye diseases, chronic infection (particularly in the feet of dogs in wire cages that are rarely, if ever, cleaned), hernias, untreated abscesses, and more are absolutely routine.

    Comment by James — July 18, 2009 @ 8:44 am

  4. We need to help people realize that the only sensible and ethical options are to get a pet from a shelter or rescue group, or from a home-based breeder who raises puppies in the home with all the advantages.

    I would like to see this happen as well, but I wonder how realistic it is given that so many shelters, rescue groups, and home-based breeders impose such severe restrictions on who is worthy to acquire a dog from them that they drive many toward pet stores.

    On the one hand, there are more rescues and shelters than ever, and resources such as Petfinder to help individuals acquire a family pet. On the other hand, many of these groups won’t adopt a dog to someone who breeds, who owns intact animals, who works full time, who has small children, who doesn’t have a big fenced yard, who who who…. the list goes on. I suspect that much of this stems from the same anger toward the “irresponsible public” that generates the support for ever more restrictive pet legislation.

    Holding potential “customers” in contempt is generally not a good business model.

    Has Winograd ever discussed the issue of overly restrictive adoption policies? Since Winograd doesn’t blame the public for shelter killing, I suspect that he advocates less restrictive adoption policies.

    Comment by LauraS — July 18, 2009 @ 9:11 am

  5. Did you know that when you procure a dog from Petland you are adopting it?

    It says so, right on the big sign out front.

    I went into a Petland the other day to see what further parody waited inside.

    I was not there TWO minutes when I witnessed an incident with the “robo hamsters.” About 30 of them were runnning around (panicked is my guess) in a display bin placed at TODDLER LEVEL at the front of the store. And lo, indeed a toddler was “playing” with them, and then there was what we will call a negative event.

    How I hate that store.

    Go, Gina!

    Comment by Mary Mary — July 18, 2009 @ 9:13 am

  6. Good for you Gina!

    There are too many rescuers and HSUS members who hate ALL breeders, and that is specifically because they have never met an ethical one. Getting out, working and volunteering with these groups is the only way to let them know that an “ethical breeder” is NOT a mythological animal.

    And you are right about education and the loss of market share being the only way to put puppy mills out of business. Look at pet stores - when I was a kid there was a pet store (selling puppies and kittens) in every mall, and hundreds more all over town. Most people thought it was a perfectly normal way to get a pet. Now, there are really very few stores left that sell puppies and kittens. That is because people are more educated about why it’s not a good idea to buy a puppy from such a place.

    In the past 10 years or so, puppy mills have seen a boom because of Internet sales - but as the public becomes better educated about why they shouldn’t buy a dog sight unseen from a web site, I think those will slowly disappear too.

    But just passing laws to try to put puppy mills out of business will be disastrous - not only do they usually hurt small breeders as much or more, but what happens when you shut off supply without decreasing demand?
    Puppy smuggling, anyone?

    Comment by Barb — July 18, 2009 @ 11:48 am

  7. Puppy smuggling, anyone?

    Puppy smuggling may sound far fetched, but it’s already happening.

    Read it and weep:
    http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsT.....uppies.xml

    Comment by LauraS — July 18, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

  8. Oh, I know it! But much as I prefer “Made in America” when buying “stuff,” I am NOT going to be supporting American puppy-mills in hopes of stalling foreign ones. My support of jobs for Americans doesn’t reach as far as puppy mills. (I certainly would consider legalized, taxed marijuana farms, though!)

    I want people to know what they support with their money, no matter what they’re getting with it.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 18, 2009 @ 12:56 pm

  9. And yet another problem: I was at the university teaching hospital yesterday picking up a prescription and the staff was talking about a dog that an airline had brought in. Apparently the dog had been shipped to the new owner, but the new owner couldn’t be located. So the airline took “custody” of the dog, wanting the hospital to board it (which they do not do). They were able to keep the dog (some kind of small terrier) because he had terrible ear infections. However, they said once the ear infections were treated, back to the airline to be “returned to sender”! I’m just GUESSING that this was a puppy mill or large scale breeder puppy. For crying out loud, this is not a package of stuff, this is a living, breathing puppy and who knows what’s going to happen to him? It just broke my heart!

    Here’s hoping that the day when there is no market for the millers’ and unethical breeders’ puppies (and kittens) is soon.

    Comment by catmom5 — July 18, 2009 @ 1:00 pm

  10. I don’t know what I’m more surprised about — that there are people who still defend puppy mills or that you got dissed on Twitter for going to a protest against them. Much of the conversation on Twitter I was involved with last week revolved around banning puppy mills (or puppy farming as its called in the UK) and the only negative feedback I got was from people who thought I was against all breeders who sold dogs on line. I’m not.

    Anyway, good for you for putting up with all that abuse — and for going to the protest. And I will put up a link to this story (as Christie Keith did) and hope that the many people who support your stance send you appreciation!

    Comment by Edie — July 18, 2009 @ 1:54 pm

  11. catmom5, if you can find out what breed, l see if you can contact the breed rescue. The puppy should not have been shipped with infections, nor gotten a health certificate. Many breed rescues already have relationships with the teaching hospitals, and may know if the shipper was a puppymill.

    If rescue can take the pup if he/she is relinquished by the sender, presenting the sender with a big ass vet bill might persuade them to give up ownership to avoid paying.

    Just a suggestion. I know these things can become complicated but it might be worth a call or e-mail or two.

    Comment by JenniferJ — July 18, 2009 @ 2:03 pm

  12. I will give credit to the AKC delegates from most of the breed clubs; when ACK announced plans to “partner” with Petland a few years ago, their collective heads exploded, and they managed to put the kibosh on such a high-profile miscegenation. Didn’t stop their bureaucratic overlords from continuing to court puppymill registration $$ under the main radar, but they did make a point.

    I think most show breeders do have their hearts in the right place (about puppymills, if not about other important genetic and welfare issues), but often feel browbeaten by the Black Helicopters Coming To Take Our Show Dogs crowd.

    There are, of course, some big show kennels that are distinguishable from a regular puppymill only by the trophy room, but that’s not terribly common.

    The only thing that has kept me away from our own local Petland protests has, in fact, been that hostile anti-breeder orthodoxy among the wee vegans who populate them. Those brain-dead “adopt don’t buy” signs. Wanna guess what would happen if I showed up with Rosie, whose birth I arranged, and whose future mating I intend to arrange? Imagine the disruption of the time-space continuum as fervently believed by, for example “NYCKitten” posting over at YesBiscuit! , here http://yesbiscuit.blogspot.com.....gress.html

    Perhaps good breeders, especially good breeders who also are active in rescue, need to stage our own pet store protests — and show up with our well-loved purpose-bred companions, working dogs, sporting partners.

    Of course, we’d just be accused of sour grapes, an attempt to shut down a “competitor.”

    Comment by H. Houlahan — July 18, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

  13. It’s too hot on the pavement, or I would have taken Woody the champeen huntin’ triever along, obvious balls and all. For more of that head-exploding goodness.

    Actually, though, everyone was friendly on the picket line, even after I was “outed” as a breeder — by myself.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 18, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

  14. Come cooler weather, I’d be willing to join you, with my male toy fox in tow. I’ll even humiliate him and put him in a shirt that says NO PUPPYMILLS.

    At 6 pounds, I doubt I could get much more written on a garment for him. :)

    Comment by JenniferJ — July 18, 2009 @ 3:34 pm

  15. OK OT but hey, check these out

    Beyond how ell done some of these are, I would also totally buy dog toys based on these

    http://culturepopped.blogspot......-wars.html

    Comment by JenniferJ — July 18, 2009 @ 3:38 pm

  16. Me like … especially Jabba with his binky.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 18, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

  17. Me, too, like Jabby holding onto his binky.

    Comment by Colorado Transplant — July 18, 2009 @ 5:00 pm

  18. Oh, I just went through this on my own blog. I had the TEMERITY to be disgusted that the AKC ran a full page ad touting AKC registered puppies as valuable tools to drive pet store puppy sales in a magazine aimed squarely at pet retailers.

    link: http://bullmarketfrogs.com/blog/?p=1568

    I was promptly jumped on by commenters as a lackey of the HSUS, a traitor to pure bred dogs, and a stupid Canadian who just shut her mouth and mind her own business.

    And those are the comments I DID approve. The ones I didn’t involved profanity directed at me, my dogs, and sexual activities with members of Peta and the HSUS.

    It was all rather mind boggling.

    As Gina said, apparently you can no longer be anti puppy mills or pet store puppy sales, and also be a breeder. Someone apparently forgot to send me that memo, I guess.

    Comment by FrogDogz — July 18, 2009 @ 5:03 pm

  19. “Me, too, like Jabby holding onto his binky.”

    I’ll take one of those and a side of Wookie Cookies!

    Comment by JenniferJ — July 18, 2009 @ 5:21 pm

  20. Frogdogz, I have not been memo’d on this either. Although you would think that with the Petland scandal and the breed club uprising over it, there would be more in our camp.

    Frankly I suspect the “good breeders who loathe puppymill numbers are very high”, but most are not active online or in the blogosphere beyond the breed sites.

    What we need is a national organization of responsible breeders, or a North American one, that transcends the registry systems.

    Comment by JenniferJ — July 18, 2009 @ 5:37 pm

  21. BTW Carol, YGM

    :)

    Comment by JenniferJ — July 18, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

  22. Jennifer and Carol … when I called Christie about the pounding I got for being “an AR dupe,” I said, “I can’t believe all these decent breeders defending puppy mills.”

    She said in her experience they were not at all the majority, just the loudest.

    And as Houlie has said, they seem to have cowed many of the rest of us with the Black Helicopters of OMG They’ll Take Our Dogs Away.

    Well, hell, I’m not cowed. Not by mandatory spay-neuter pet extinctionists, and not by puppy-mill defenders.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 18, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

  23. I have been thinking that an alliance of home-based breeders committed to preserving and improving their breeds and honoring the human-dog bond — you know, family pets from family homes — would not suck as an idea for a new organization.

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 18, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

  24. We have GOT TO present a coherent, cohesive argument about home-based breeding. We have to stop being divided AMONG OURSELVES, and stand up for what’s right for dogs and for the humans who bring them into their families.

    I keep hearing, over and over and over, that “small, home-based breeders cannot fill the demand for puppies in this country.” OF COURSE THEY CAN. That’s a load of nonsense.

    23.5 million people plan to get a pet in the next year. Something less than half those want dogs, so let’s call it 10 million.

    12 percent will get those dogs from shelters and rescue groups, lowering our number to around 8 million who will get a dog from somewhere other than a shelter or rescue group in the next year.

    The shelter community is also working very aggressively right now to increase their market share, so let’s, for the sake of argument, say that they will succeed, so in a few years, the total of new pets acquired through some form of rehoming — shelters, rescue groups, between friends, family members, neighbors, and classified ads, will be 30 percent. I think it will be more, but let’s use that number.

    That leaves us with 5,600,000 dogs obtained in some other way. I don’t know the true average litter size — I doubt anyone really does. Toys dogs usually have tiny litters, big dogs often have huge litters, and there are equal numbers of large and small dogs on the “top ten” list of popular breeds. So let’s just, again, for the sake or argument, say that number is 5 per litter.

    That is only 1,120,000 litters a year in the entire country. Why on earth would that not be completely possible?

    I’ll tell you what will make it UNLIKELY — continuing to be ashamed of breeding dogs. Allowing ourselves to be squeezed from one side by the black helicopter crowd into thinking we can only sell our souls and defend the mills to protect our right to breed dogs, who insist that we are shooting ourselves in the foot to say that home-bred dogs make the best pets, who say that by defending what we know is truly good husbandry that results in the happiest, healthiest, most stable family pets is some kind of “elitism”…

    While being squeezed on the OTHER side by the crazy nutjobs who think that we should be ashamed of what we’re doing, ashamed to cherish our breeds, ashamed to stand up and say, yes, I breed good family companions or working dogs and I’m proud of the healthy, stable animals I produce.

    We should tell both sides of the squeeze machine to shut up, and stand up for what we ALREADY KNOW IS RIGHT AND TRUE. That family pets should come from family homes, that family breeders — real ones, not the liars on the Internet who claim to be — are, along with rehoming situations like rescue and shelters and private arrangements, the best and ONLY good places to get a family pet.

    Stop believing the lie. Yes, home breeders can fill the demand for puppies in this country — if we stop lying down and hiding from those who are trying to crush us, and if we stop listening to those who say we have to get in bed with the millers to protect our own rights.

    I keep saying “us” and “we” even though I don’t breed anymore, but I still honor and cherish my breed and the loving, compassionate and dedicated hearts of the THOUSANDS of small home-based breeders I know and have known throughout the years. Breeders who ALL do rescue, help anyone who crosses their path with a dog problem, drives endless hours to reclaim a puppy from a poor placement, and spends countless more giving out advice about dogs in general and their breed in particular.

    Screw the people who tell you that you’re elitists. You’re DOG PEOPLE. You really are something special. Stop hiding. You, we, can be the future of companion dogs in this country, but not if we don’t get out of the middle of this pointless, false debate between the two crowds who keep telling you a “breeder is a breeder is a breeder,” each in their own way and for their own reasons.

    Of COURSE that’s absurd. All breeders are not the same. You know it. I know it. Frankly, they know it.

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 18, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

  25. Christie,

    What is wrong with the term “backyard breeder?” And if that term goes away, what term would differentiate between homebased breeders who are active in breed clubs, plan ahead, test, etc. — basically, think things through — and those who just throw together a couple of purebred dogs with papers?

    I have always liked the term backyard breeder. It’s quick and it’s visual and it sounds like amateur, redneck even.

    Comment by Mary Mary — July 18, 2009 @ 6:47 pm

  26. I meant, we have to stop using it as a pejorative.

    I don’t think that single-litter, somewhat clueless home-based breeders (that variety of “backyard breeder”) are horrible places to get a dog. They may not have done the testing, and they may not know about things like take back contracts or know to keep track of their puppies, but you know, they often have really nice dogs. I think we should embrace them, and many of them will want to do the right thing when they are exposed to it. And the world won’t end if some of them never do, either, because most of them don’t ever have another litter, at least, that’s what AKC registration stats tell us.

    The only ones I don’t embrace are the “backyard breeders” who are just small-scale millers.

    I edited my comment to clarify.

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 18, 2009 @ 6:54 pm

  27. Well Christie, I think your logo is perfect. That is a great start.

    I do not see why it could not work.

    I think there needs to be a basic, but reasonable set of tenants that responsible breeders from a wide variety of breed and disciplines AND the general public can grasp easily.

    -Breeders will breed only mature, mentally and physically sound dogs
    -Breeders will work closely with their veterinarians to assure breeding dogs are in good health
    -Breeders will utilize existing and emerging health screening tests and veterinary medical advances to work towards protecting and improving the genetic health of their own lines and their breed
    -Breeders will limit thenumber of litters a female dog whelps in her lifetime to protect her health
    -Breeders will not allow male dogs to be overbred and over-represented in their breeds genepool
    -Puppies will be whelped and raised with individual attention, in a home or in special quarters specifically designated to maximize health, socialization and to reduce stress on the dam and grant her privacy, protection and comfort
    -breeders will not raise more puppies or keep more dogs than they can provide optimal socialization for. Puppies should be socialized to situations which prepare them for life as a companion and family pet.
    -Breeders will ensure that puppies are individually examined by a veterinarian prior to decisions regarding their placement being made
    -Breeders will sell or place all puppies on a contract stipulating the rights and the responsibilities of the puppy buyer and breeder
    -Breeders will ensure by contract that puppies or adults purchased or adopted will be returned to the breeder if at ANY time in their lives they should need to be re-homed
    -Breeders will place puppies who are not designated as potential breeding, working or competition prospects on sterility agreements to prevent unplanned or inappropriate breeding

    Basically breed healthy dogs with an emphasis on health, not too often. Stand by them always. Protect them with a contract as much as is reasonably possible. Respect the dignity of EVERY animal and employ the golden rule in dealing with puppy buyer.

    “Family pets from family homes” I LIKE it.

    Comment by JenniferJ — July 18, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

  28. Wait — responsible breeders should embrace those breeders who don’t test and who just throw two dogs together and hope for the best? No spay/neuter contracts, no take back clause, etc.?

    All I have read over and over from the time I found this blog several months is that people should buy from compassionate, ethical breeders if they must have a purebred puppy. Is that now changing to semi-ethical breeders are OK too? Or is being a clueless dog-lover who breeds sloppily not the same as unethical? And as long as people don’t go to puppy mills/retailers, it’s OK?

    Maybe it’s buy from an ethical breeder or, barring that, a well-meaning hobbyist who doesn’t breed more than X litters per year/dog and doesn’t breed more than (Y) different breeds, and they all live inside …

    I am not being sarcastic.

    Comment by Mary Mary — July 18, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

  29. I would add —

    Breeders will refrain from selecting for extremes of size, structure, or character that can be deleterious to the welfare of the dog.

    Breeders will place puppies only with buyers who are suitable matches for the type of puppy the breeder is producing, and will take pains to screen prospective buyers and educate them

    Comment by H. Houlahan — July 18, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

  30. Mary, by “embrace” I mean them personally. We act like those people are the freaking scum of the earth, and they’re mostly not. They very naturally have an interest, as humans have since the dawn of the domestication of animals, in seeing their own animals reproduce. We’ve demonized that to such an extent that we’ve put a wall between us and them, and the culture of the “responsible dog breeder” is to act as though they are just one step removed from puppy millers — if that.

    Most of these people are just outside the culture of the “responsible dog breeder,” that’s all. The things that obsess us are totally off their radar. We act like getting a puppy from those folks is like committing murder, but there are FAR worse places to get a puppy.

    If breeding a dog wasn’t treated like either some secret society that almost no one can get into or, depending on the situation, a heinous act, maybe quite a few of those people would just kind of pick up through general interaction and “common knowledge” that if you sell a puppy it should be on a take-back contract, and that you have to watch out for certain things in certain breeds.

    If “responsible breeders” didn’t treat these people like pariahs when they ask to breed their bitches to our dogs, we could mentor and help them with their litter. (I am not saying we should necessarily let them breed their bitches to our dogs, but that the idea of breeding dogs for pets should be reclaimed as a valuable cultural contribution.)

    So I’m not saying we should embrace careless breeding, I’m saying we should stop acting like this is rocket science or a cult, and remember that it’s normal and natural and even GOOD to want to bring puppies into the world, and help people do it well instead of badly.

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 18, 2009 @ 7:24 pm

  31. Basically breed healthy dogs with an emphasis on health, not too often. Stand by them always. Protect them with a contract as much as is reasonably possible. Respect the dignity of EVERY animal and employ the golden rule in dealing with puppy buyer.

    Yes, basically. I don’t want to have some long list of very specific rules, just a general statement of purpose like that. Very well said.

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 18, 2009 @ 7:25 pm

  32. MM … this is serious uncharted territory here. And I bet you that Christie is going to use “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” in her response. :)

    I think in terms of embracing it’s more about getting to those one-litter breeders of the beloved family pet, the folks who would do most everything right if they only give help, not scorn. Those people can be part of the solution to puppy mills.

    The folks who can’t be part of the solution are typified by those who crank out Chihuahuas and Pibbles for easy cash (to use the most egregious example). Those folks are, as Christie noted, just small-scale millers. And in their case, when we say backyard, that’s probably where those dogs always are. Those folks, I doubt we can reach, help or change.

    Now, we have a culture of if you don’t spay-neuter, you’re not responsible. This is a culture clash, to be sure.

    But as Christie argues, the numbers add up. For dogs only, of course. Cats, rabbits and other pets have different challenges.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 18, 2009 @ 7:26 pm

  33. Well … she MEANT that, I know. :)

    I’m done for the night. It’s finally cooling down, and I’m going to sit on the deck with the critters.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 18, 2009 @ 7:32 pm

  34. Christie, I agree, it needs to be basic.

    I had a mistake, the first line there should say breed happy dogs with an emphasis on health.

    I think that covers most of the genetic, physical, physiological issues, extremity of type issues too. You can’t have physically or physiologically crippled dogs if you also want happy healthy dogs.

    Add something about placed with care in appropriate homes too

    I have no problem embracing the well-meaning casual breeder. I’ll help them now if I can. I’ve “grown up” a lot the past few years!

    A nice, not too specific basic statement will help get some of those folks on board, and hopefully they can learn by example and by being part of something larger and positive rather than exclusive and coercive. That’s what breed clubs are for! XD

    Comment by JenniferJ — July 18, 2009 @ 7:43 pm

  35. Way to go, Gina!!

    Great pic by the way - put the Google to work!

    More breeders need to come out of the shadows and denounce puppy mills. I think that’s part of the problem. There’s the breeder haters (a breeder is a breeder) and the puppy mill defenders or those who simply don’t think it’s a big deal (the get a life crowd).

    However, there are a growing number of folks who live in the shadow of the breeder haters. Those like many here, who stand for the rights of both individual pet owners and ethical breeders alike, while experiencing heart pains when thinking about commercial breeding operations. These people are denounced by BOTH groups, generally as being confused (or simply stupid).

    As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle - I can respect someone with passion for their cause… I have little respect for those people who jump on a cause just because they saw it on Oprah. Those who fail to do any research to understand just what it is they are fighting for.

    If the HSUS is still poking around this board, could someone point me in the right direction - I want to find out if their investigation into Petland looked at any Canadian branches, and I can’t seem to find a definitive answer one way or the other. Would LOVE to organize a protest outside our local Petland.

    Comment by Kim — July 18, 2009 @ 8:03 pm

  36. Quick off topic note - the annual fundraising walkathon for our local SPCA was sponsored by none other than PETLAND this year (among others). I almost puked.

    Comment by Kim — July 18, 2009 @ 8:04 pm

  37. I was writing an article about some rescue groups a few months ago and I asked one of the women I interviewed if she was also a breeder. She indignantly replied that she was not. I said, ‘Just checking; a lot of breeders also do rescue.’ To her credit, she replied that that was true, she didn’t mean to come off sounding that way, and that she had actually gotten a lot of help from breeders.

    Comment by Kim Thornton — July 18, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

  38. As long as we have “pet limits”.. outrageous fees for having an “intact dog”. people who think two litters is a “drain” on a bitch.( and really dumb people who think a bitch should ‘rest’ between litters ignoring the risk of pyo) People who think a stud dog should only be used once or twice..The HSUS telling people to “adopt” instead of buy .. etc we will never rid ourselves of “puppy mills”.. in fact.. it would be interesting to hear what people posting here actually think a “puppy mill” is.. because the HSUS is saying that in CA if you own more than 50 intact dogs and/ or cats YOU are a “puppy mill” or a “cat mill” or both..they are sponsoring a bill Ab 241 ( Nava) that says that NO ONE shall have more than 50 intact animals on their OWN property without becoming a criminal. The government and the HSUS want to make the decision for YOU and ME about the care and the number of our pets. This number is just a bar, selected out of thin air just as the HSUS has selected 50 as the “number” that they think will work for A THIS YEAR… other states have had a different number chosen for them by the HSUS as they have introduced this same legislation on over 38 states… so far….
    How can breeders “come out of the shadows” when the HSUS and other ar industries are pushing for regulations and numbers and restrictions all of the time?
    You, Gina, did not pick up the sign that said “Adopt don’t Buy’.. but I will bet you that someone else did.. and that the signs were provided by the HSUS.
    Backyard breeder becoming a postive term?.. not in our lifetime.. the HSUS has co opted that phrase long ago to mean someone who just does not give a damn about dogs or cats… Sorry..I am a backyard breeder.. a garage breeder, a living room breeder, a bedroom breeder and a kitchen breeder.. all of these.. I have had puppies born in ALL of these places.. and more..
    I do get a kick out of Christie.. who says great things like:
    “If “responsible breeders” didn’t treat these people like pariahs when they ask to breed their bitches to our dogs, we could mentor and help them with their litter. “
    And then tempers it with this:
    “(I am not saying we should necessarily let them breed their bitches to our dogs, …)”
    LOL.. then who will?
    And what is a ‘small scale puppy mill”? and how does the buyer know if they are buying from a “small scale mill” or “large scale mill”?.. and if there are both.. then isn’t every breeder a “mill” regardelss of size.. and what the heck is a “Pibble” and why are they the object of ‘small scale puppy mills” is that some word that is supposed to describe an American Pit Bull Terrier? And are Chihuahua breeders also included in this group? I know lots of well meaning very good Chihuahua breeders who produce excellent specimens of the breed.
    In addition several of my friends have purchased puppies from pet stores. All of them have lived long and happy lives. We seem to forget that most of our purebred dogs were in the beginning products of large commercial or at least large sporting, hunting, working or other kennels.. we would never be able to have the purebred dogs we have today without the large kennels of the past…were they “puppy mills” too? I do know that the “father ” of my breed kept as many as 75 or more ( INTACT) dogs on his property at any given time.. thank goodness.. of course the HSUS today would classify him as a “puppy mill” and my breed would probaly no longer exsist…
    So when the HSUS takes “numbers” of intact pets “allowed’ off the table I will perhaps think that they are starting on the right track.. but heck.. it hasn’t snowed in hell in ages..

    Comment by bestuvall — July 18, 2009 @ 10:58 pm

  39. Gina says:
    “Laws don’t work as well as changing attitudes do.”
    Then why pray tell does the HSUS have over 400 “animal laws” that they are lobbying for just this year.. many of them in our own state including one that LIMITS our ability to own intact animals that could indeed provide happy healthy puppies and kittens for public purchase?
    Gina says:
    “We need to help people realize that the only sensible and ethical options are to get a pet from a shelter or rescue group, or from a breeder who raises puppies in the home with all the proven advantages of constant socialization and early training”/
    I agree that people should buy dogs from home breeders.. so why then is the HSUS pushing for limits on home breeding.. why do they support MSN?.. Why do they want to limit the numbers of litters a home breeder can have? Why did they support AB 1634? a MANDATORY CASTRATION bill for the state of CA.. why did they support MSN for Chicago? Why do they support retrictions of “pit bull” ownership and why do they continue to ask for the “pit bulls” who are victims of dog fighting to be KILLED ( as they just did in North Carolina.. incluing six week old puppies?) And since the HSUS claims that most dogs in shelters come from “puppy mills” then how can they be happy healthy pets?. Happy .. healthy.. if they come from the shelter.. miserable.. sick.. and terrible .. if they come from a pet store?? hmm this is the same as when “puppy mills” are raided.. HSUS claims dogs are “flithy, emaciated and horrific”. but “available for “adoption” in less than a week”…
    Can’t have it both ways….I have yet to see an HSUS placement that says. “Sick, horrible, skinny, behavior problems available”.
    Let’s face it.. jstu because the department to oversees dog breeding is CALLED the Department of Agriculture ( a left over from the days when the government actually PROMOTED dog breeding as a money maker and satisfying life style)does not make it wrong..It is just a name… and they DO oversee kennels.. would you prefer that they did not?

    Comment by bestuvall — July 18, 2009 @ 11:36 pm

  40. HSUS gets popularity boosts from the JQP pet community who choose to see ‘social good’ but are not informed enough to see beyond that. JQP doesn’t breed, they don’t register, they don’t show, they don’t work their dogs, they don’t know much about genetics or animal health and care, they don’t know a lot about other breeds. But if HSUS is their authority, HSUS is arbitrarily assigned a massive amount of political power.

    Pet connection is read by JQP; ergo Pet Connection helps assign HSUS the false authority it wants with these gushing collaborations with HSUS against ‘puppy mills’.

    It doesn’t matter who invented the word, it’s who is using the words to give HSUS usage of it more authentication.

    Several bills in California are allegedly targeted at ‘abuse’ and ‘puppy mills’. Nice heated words. AB 241 has no abusive action actually defined other than existance of an arbitrary number of dogs and cats—which alone, constitutes a CRIME. It and two other HSUS bills that are intended to set dangerous precedents to make humane societies immune from same definitions of ‘abuse’.

    This population of trusting mainstream people is manipulated by HSUS as enthusiastic backers for the passing of ballot initiatives such as Prop 2 in such states California and possibly Ohio—and it will spread. Wayne Pacelle recognizes the power of this false authority and has even threatened agriculture with use of this massive amount misdirected power. http://www.farmanddairy.com/co.....11606.html

    Emotive and divisive language such as “Breeders against rescuers”, pet lovers vs “puppy mills”, pro-food vs “factory farming” and cruelty free vs whatever use of semantics including ‘no kill’ in quotes, which continues to divide us further. HSUS ensures that there will be ‘just enough’ pet related issues to keep JQP’s faith in HSUS’ hero status. This blind faith will help HSUS break down the structure of other areas where JQP’s knowlege is weak.

    Gina noted that she was a breeder whose attendance at the picket line made her position unique. But Gina, when you aren’t in line, HSUS is using you for your endorsement of their authority. Pet Connection could help by not giving HSUS any authority.

    We have welfare laws, they just need to enforced.

    HSUS is working on laws that continue to constrict and punish community involvement. Without community involvement, no kill cannot work. HSUS is decidedly anti-No Kill in principle and practice.

    Two ethical vegans elaborate here:
    1.
    - Dr Steve Best has been banned from UK for his views on animal liberation. (“property destruction is okay in some circumstances”)
    article: - http://ow.ly/hBzX
    - website: http://drstevebest.org/
    - wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Best

    2.
    - Nathan Winograd probably needs no intro if you have read of his advocacy for No Kill shelters for pet animals.
    article: - http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=1247
    - website: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/
    - wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Winograd

    Gina, give HSUS all the authority you want. It’s your right. Remember what Pogo had to say about the enemy.

    Comment by SemaviLady — July 19, 2009 @ 1:38 am

  41. Comment by bestuvall — July 18, 2009 @ 11:36 pm

    Let’s face it.. jstu because the department to oversees dog breeding is CALLED the Department of Agriculture ( a left over from the days when the government actually PROMOTED dog breeding as a money maker and satisfying life style)does not make it wrong..It is just a name… and they DO oversee kennels.. would you prefer that they did not?

    Considering that - among other things - their view of “dogs as livestock” leads them to permit the permanent housing of dogs in cages barely large enough for them to take a few steps in, then yes - I would prefer that the Department of AGRICULTURE keep their rule-writin’ hands off the dogs that are meant to be lifetime family pets.

    For those unfamiliar with the USDA regulations on permissible cage sizes, click on the link below and start clicking on the pictures to move through the “primer”:

    http://www.kimtownsend.com/csusda.htm

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 19, 2009 @ 6:12 am

  42. bestuvall … and excellent overview of Black Helicopter paranoia, and thank you. As you should know by now, the HSUS is no longer a sponsor or a supporter of the mandatory spay-neuter legislation in California. They have also changed their policy on post-bust fight dogs, and are now advocating for saving as many of them as possible. Only time will tell how these policies play out, and if they are changing for good as they seem to be.

    And yes, I believe the U.S. Department of AGRICULTURE has no business in the family pet business. What else is wrong with the U.S.D.A., its preference for corporate agribiz and its love of concentrated animal feeding operations (a/k/a factory farms) and unsustainable, fossil-fuel dependent farming would fill an entire book. (I recommend “Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal,” by Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms.)

    As I said, don’t let HSUS hate prevent you from looking these dogs in the eyes and knowing that what’s happening is wrong.

    Finally, realize that every time you repeat a lie about the HSUS and what they support NOW, you erode your credibility. Except, of course, among the Black Helicopter crowd.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 6:40 am

  43. The HSUS doesn’t get to decide what’s on and off the table. We all do.

    I agree with you on pet limits laws, and on recognizing that we need to change the culture to accept that a responsible pet-owner can have an intact dog and still be responsible.

    As for the Pibble/Chihuahua problem, you well know I am not advocating for the extinction of those breeds. I am pointing out that both are overrepresented in shelters because they are being overbred by people who are doing it just for cash or who are having “oops” litters because they have no access to spay-neutering services they can get to or afford. This is a special problem that requires a targeted solution, most likely in the form of incentived spay-neuter placed where people can get to it.

    That, along with reducing the stigma attached to Pibbles so more will be adopted from the shelters.

    As for AB 241, I admit to being divided on it. As I said, I would prefer cultural change to legislative action. But can you honestly show me how someone with 50 dogs can raise family pets? Not show champions or champion night-hunting coonhounds, but well-socialized, home-raised family pets born of family pets who might also be show champions or hunting dogs?

    I have a hard time seeing how that’s possible, having 50 dogs as pets before they are anything else.

    My problem with AB241 is who decides the number? 50 seems pretty reasonable to me when we’re talking about animals who are pets who breed, not “breeding stock,” but what about five? 10? Christie, who is the most extraordinary dog-owner I have ever known, once had maybe eight Scottish Deerhounds and two mixed breeds when she lived on rural acreage. Those dogs were absolutely pets.

    And 10 toy dogs? I see no problem with someone caring for 10 tiny dogs as pets, or 10 cats, even in an apartment.

    But where should the line be drawn? I honestly have a problem with arbitrary numbers that don’t take into account the size and exercise requirements of the dogs, the size of the property, etc.

    That said …

    Ethical breeders need to stop being “The Party of No,” saying that if the HSUS thinks this, they think that, 180 degrees away automatically. We must insist on being stakeholders and demand a place at the table.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 6:47 am

  44. As long as we have “pet limits”.. outrageous fees for having an “intact dog”. people who think two litters is a “drain” on a bitch.( and really dumb people who think a bitch should ‘rest’ between litters ignoring the risk of pyo) People who think a stud dog should only be used once or twice..The HSUS telling people to “adopt” instead of buy .. etc we will never rid ourselves of “puppy mills”.

    How many times do you think a bitch should be bred back-to-back before she should be retired and spayed?

    in fact.. it would be interesting to hear what people posting here actually think a “puppy mill” is.. because the HSUS is saying that in CA if you own more than 50 intact dogs and/ or cats YOU are a “puppy mill” or a “cat mill” or both..

    It’s not likely they’re all your personal, beloved, live-in-the-house family pets, for sure.

    And what is a ‘small scale puppy mill”? and how does the buyer know if they are buying from a “small scale mill” or “large scale mill”?..

    Go take a look. Visit the place and you’ll be able to see fairly easily if it’s large scale or small scale. Or if they have a lot of breeds, they can’t really be “small scale.”

    If you can’t visit, you don’t want to get a dog from them anyway.

    and if there are both.. then isn’t every breeder a “mill” regardelss of size..

    No. Not all breeders have their dogs living in cages their whole lives, as production units, rather than family pets.

    My dog was born in her breeder’s bedroom. All the dogs live inside the house—in addition to the two kids, the cat, and one or more foster dogs at any given time. They have toys, and they get to play in the grass. They don’t just get kibble dumped in their bowls once a day; they get individual diets based on their individual needs and preferences.

    Mill dogs don’t live like that.

    and what the heck is a “Pibble” and why are they the object of ‘small scale puppy mills” is that some word that is supposed to describe an American Pit Bull Terrier?

    Yup. It’s an affectionate term for the breed used by people who regard the dogs as something other than production units for a consumer product.

    And are Chihuahua breeders also included in this group?

    “Puppy mill” is not a category that’s determined by the breed(s) of dogs being bred. It’s determined by how the dogs are regarded, and treated. Small breeds are really popular with puppy millers, because they’re cheaper to raise and in high demand.

    I know lots of well meaning very good Chihuahua breeders who produce excellent specimens of the breed.

    “Excellent specimens”—determined how? Do they show? Do agility? Lots of therapy dogs among them? What?

    In addition several of my friends have purchased puppies from pet stores. All of them have lived long and happy lives.

    I’m sure. It is a less common experience among people who get their dogs from pet stores than from responsible breeders who health-screen their dogs and provide proper vet care and the proper socialization and care for the puppies.

    But regardless, the parents of those pet store dogs are living in tiny cages, with no toys, playtime, or human affection, getting bred every single heat until they wear out and stop “prodcuing.” At which point they are dumped—often literally in the trash.

    We seem to forget that most of our purebred dogs were in the beginning products of large commercial or at least large sporting, hunting, working or other kennels..

    There’s a huge difference between a working or sporting kennel, and a puppy mill. Not least of those differences is a lot of human interaction and getting out to do whatever work or sport the dogs are being bred for.

    While most of us wouldn’t be thrilled at many of the very large kennels of previous centuries, they were in no way comparable to the modern commercial puppy mill, and puppy mill dogs’ lives would be infinitely improved by being transported to kennels like those.

    we would never be able to have the purebred dogs we have today without the large kennels of the past…were they “puppy mills” too? I do know that the “father ” of my breed kept as many as 75 or more ( INTACT) dogs on his property at any given time.. thank goodness.. of course the HSUS today would classify him as a “puppy mill” and my breed would probaly no longer exsist…

    It was a different era and many other things have changed about how we live our lives too. And, as I said above, puppy mill dogs would think they’d died and gone to heaven, to live in those kennels rather than puppy mills.

    Comment by Lis — July 19, 2009 @ 7:09 am

  45. You beat me to it, Gina.

    “bestuvall,” that rotor wash overhead is just the Med-Evac unit, m’kay? Unless you are already on the roof with your AR-15, in which case, it IS the SWAT team.

    And I guess I’m a complete feckin’ idiot, because I have not jumped on the happy new hump ‘n’ dump fad of breeding a bitch back-to-back over and over while invoking “I heard this vet who said it is healthier,” sans supporting data.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — July 19, 2009 @ 7:18 am

  46. “It’s too hot on the pavement, or I would have taken Woody the champeen huntin’ triever along, obvious balls and all. For more of that head-exploding goodness.”

    Maybe telling your side of the story to the “wee vegans” would be more effective than amusing yourself by provoking them? And I suggest that seriously. Reading this blog has me rethinking some of my assumptions about breeders in ways that attempts to make my head explode probably wouldn’t.

    Comment by Smaki — July 19, 2009 @ 7:20 am

  47. SemaviLady wrote:

    Gina, give HSUS all the authority you want. It’s your right. Remember what Pogo had to say about the enemy.

    ***

    See my responses to bestuvall. And do a search for HSUS on this blog before you decide how gushing we are here.

    I am not the enemy because I refuse to howl to your dogma. Nor am I am “elitist” because I want people to be able to get healthy, well-socialized pets, not shell-shocked puppy-mill survivors.

    Oh, and by the way, you could also search for Nathan Winograd here. We DO have a degree of familiarity with his work, to say the least.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 7:20 am

  48. Smaki … I sure appreciate your open mind, and that you’re re-examining your assumptions. I wish you would comment more, like Mary Mary, so we can challenge ours as well.

    Sorry for being overly flip about the head-exploding. Although, I think HHoulahan said “wee vegans,” not me. I don’t judge my friends by their diets — as long as they don’t judge me by mine. :)

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 7:32 am

  49. Gina, I’m a frequent reader but comment rarely because I’m not sure how my questions/comments would be received. I don’t mind disagreement or debate but sometimes heated discussions* turn hostile and grudges get held and that’s not what I’m in the market for.

    *on most boards/blogs, not just here.

    Comment by Smaki — July 19, 2009 @ 7:41 am

  50. AB 241 states that “No person shall own, possess, control, or otherwise have charge or custody of more than a combined total of 50
    unsterilized dogs and cats at any time used for the purpose of breeding or raising dogs or cats for sale as pets, or for the purpose
    of producing offspring from dogs or cats for sale as pets.”

    AB 241 applies an absolute limit of 50 intact dogs plus cats that one has possession of. Within this 50 animal limit are any young puppies and young kittens one might have.

    Within this 50 animal limit are any intact dogs or cats that one has possession of, even if temporarily, but does not own.

    The bill exempts rescue groups and shelters, veterinary facilities, and research facilities. Anyone else who is over the limit becomes a criminal under AB 241.

    AB 241 does NOT exempt boarding kennels, training kennels, or hunting kennels.

    AB 241 does NOT exempt the kennels that act as brokers for law enforcement — the private businesses that obtain most of the dogs — mostly intact males — that end up serving as police dogs in California. How does it advance the cause of animal welfare for a “puppymill” bill to make criminals out of the people who obtain the dogs needed by law enforcement?

    AB 241 does NOT exempt those who own dogs that are dispersed into multiple homes. Many breeders maintain full or partial ownership rights to dogs that are in the possession of others. This is fairly common among working dog breeders. So yes, a person can “own” more than 50 intact dogs, all of which get to live in a nice family environment.

    Now in theory if some or all of the intact dogs & cats one has don’t have the “purpose” of being used to breed pets, one might be able to claim they shouldn’t count toward the limit. I have my doubts that this will fly, for two reasons.

    Dogs are legally considered pets unless clearly defined otherwise in a law. There is no special status for working or hunting dogs as non-pets unless a bill creates a definition for them, and AB 241 does not. Under AB 241, those working-bred GSDs and Malinois that a broker imported from Europe to serve as law enforcement dogs would probably be legally classified as “pets”.

    There is also an extremely common belief that the only reason anyone would have an intact dog or cat is to breed them. Thus by definition: intact dog = breeding dog. Many laws and ordinances include this by definition. AB 241 doesn’t state otherwise. Try to convince someone that a dog is intact because it makes for a better working dog, or because you prefer the temperament of an intact dog, or because you believe it’s in the best interests of their health, or for any other reason, and they look at you like you are not only insane but are the cause of all the killing in animal shelters. Best of luck trying to convince your local animal control otherwise.

    Comment by LauraS — July 19, 2009 @ 7:48 am

  51. There’s a huge difference between a working or sporting kennel, and a puppy mill.

    Not under AB 241.

    Comment by LauraS — July 19, 2009 @ 7:50 am

  52. Although I admit to being extremely snarky at times to zealots of any stripe who drop in, post and run, Christie and I do try to keep discussions non-personal and moving forward with respect, if not agreement.

    I welcome anyone to speak up if they thinks things are getting to the “heat not light” stage. Everyone needs a dope slap now and then, even me. petconnection@gmail.com

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 7:53 am

  53. Laura, thank you so much for the contribution here. I have been struggling with AB 241, and this really helps.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 7:55 am

  54. Smaki,

    I understand your caution. I post maybe 1/3 of the comments I want to post.

    The interesting thing is that often, whatever point I want to make is made within an hour or two by someone else anyway.

    But it sure would be nice to have some other input here from non-breeders, if that’s what you are, who are trying to get a better sense of the whole picture.

    I haven’t felt any hostility directed at me personally, but definitely at my ilk. That’s OK. This is still the best place I’ve found yet to learn what “the other side” is up to. Or should I say the other sides.

    If nothing else, the degree of literacy in the comments is astounding. I mean really.

    Comment by Mary Mary — July 19, 2009 @ 7:59 am

  55. Mary Mary, how many of us do you think are breeders?

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 19, 2009 @ 8:01 am

  56. The OTHER Pat writes:

    Mary Mary, how many of us do you think are breeders?

    ***

    I was just thinking about that while out with the chickens …

    I’ve been writing about pets for 30 years. Ran a breed rescue for three years. Taught obedience for a while (I’m not a good teacher … ask the Cal State Sacramento students who endured me for three semesters as a lecturer). Most of my pets have been spayed or neutered, some have been rescues. I’ve had dogs compete in shows, obedience trials and hunt tests.

    A dog of mine has sired a litter, and I have whelped one planned litter of six in my home. I may well not breed another litter, but I doubt I will breed more than a couple additional well-planned, well-raised litters in my life in any case.

    I think I’m a multitasking responsible, educated pet-owner.

    Mind you, I am proud of the breeding I’ve done. But I’ve done a whole lot more than that, and I hate to be defined narrowly.

    If you have to put one label on me, I much prefer “New York Times best-selling author,” but my friends and family have told me I am no longer allowed to say that because they’re pretty tired of hearing it. :)

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 8:07 am

  57. Nah - they’re just tired of hearing about all the millions it’s made for you! VBG!

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 19, 2009 @ 8:15 am

  58. There’s a huge difference between a working or sporting kennel, and a puppy mill.

    Not under AB 241.

    Comment by LauraS — July 19, 2009 @ 7:50 am

    I think it’s clear from context that I was talking about bestuvall’s attempt to equate modern puppy mills with the working and sporting kennels of a century past—not even current working and sporting kennel—and not about AB 241, about which I had zero information before you posted about it. (The ironically named bestuvall gave the number and some vague assertions, and that’s it.)

    In fact, since I talked about the differences between those kennels of the past and current puppy mills, and made reference to the many other changes in our lives since those times, it would be pretty well impossible to miss the fact that I wasn’t talking about the proposed bill and its effects on current working kennels.

    Comment by Lis — July 19, 2009 @ 8:17 am

  59. Gina said “Although I admit to being extremely snarky at times to zealots of any stripe who drop in, post and run, Christie and I do try to keep discussions non-personal and moving forward with respect, if not agreement.”

    While my previous comment wasn’t meant to be a complaint, I appreciate that.

    Mary Mary, I’m definitely trying to get a better sense of the whole picture. I suspect that like most things there are kooks on each side (or sides) that taint the picture for those on the outside. AR folks get painted with the Peta brush and breeders get lumped in with millers.

    “If nothing else, the degree of literacy in the comments is astounding.”

    Agree entirely. It’s encouraging to read non-hysterical criticism.

    Since I’m delurking today, can anyone suggest some required reading for me? Other than this blog I mean? ;)

    Comment by Smaki — July 19, 2009 @ 8:20 am

  60. Rather than set an arbitrary limit of 50 intact dogs and cats, over which one is by definition a criminal as AB 241 does, I think it would have been preferable to establish a threshold of 50 dogs+cats over 4 months of age housed on a property. If one exceeds this threshold one is subject to animal welfare inspections without search warrants.

    Basically, the premise would be that if you have more than 50 dogs and cats, you are in some kind of dog or cat business, and businesses are subject to inspections. Or perhaps you are a hoarder in which case warrantless inspections would also advance the cause of animal welfare. I do not see why rescues and private shelters should be exempted.

    I also do not see why altered dogs and altered cats should not count in the threshold. AB 241 says that having possession of 51 intact dogs is criminal, but having possession of 800 speutered dogs is of no concern. Huh?

    If we buy the argument that possession of more than 50 intact dogs and cats is an animal welfare concern with the usual “no one can take care of that many dogs” logic, why don’t we care about the welfare of the altered dogs and cats too? [answer: AB 241 as written isn’t about animal welfare, it’s another vehicle to reduce the number of intact dogs and cats, and decrease breeding.]

    An inspection trigger would enable increased scrutiny of those who do have more than 50 dogs and cats, and would advance the cause of animal welfare, without the unintended consequences that absolute limits can create.

    While we are at it, let’s have this inspection threshold law override all local limit laws. Make them go away.

    Comment by LauraS — July 19, 2009 @ 8:21 am

  61. Smaki, this discussion has meandered a bit. What topics of interest are you looking to read about?

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 19, 2009 @ 8:26 am

  62. The OTHER Pat & Gina,
    I’m rushing out the door (to the shelter, as usual) and will write something coherent later.

    Smaki,
    If you have not already seen this, it is VERY much worth a look. Numbers! Data! And best of all, hope!

    http://www.maddiesfund.org/Fun.....oject.html

    Be sure to check out all the sidebars linked on the right.

    This is a great cheat sheet:

    http://www.nokilladvocacycente.....ation.html

    And this is a really thought-provoking essay about my favorite store, Petland, and the people who buy animals there. Written by H. Houlahan:

    http://cynography.blogspot.com.....-this.html

    Comment by Mary Mary — July 19, 2009 @ 8:49 am

  63. Thanks for the overview of AB 241, Laura.

    I can easily see a pack hound kennel, for example, jumping over the limit with a few litters on the ground.

    A small hobby breeder of a fecund breed, like retrievers or Danes, say, who “sells” only on co-ownership contracts, could exceed the threshold in just a few years, while keeping maybe 3-5 dogs of her own.

    Meanwhile, a puppy mill can continue to thrive without bumping against the law by putting ownership of breeding bitches into the names of relatives and business partners and maintaining various locations.

    Oh, and by moving those pups out really young to make “legal” room for the next lot to be born.

    I like your suggestion for a numerical threshold for inspections. Real animal welfare inspections, not the USDA bean-counter “Oh, there’s a cobweb, you get cited” while ignoring the eight-year-old bitch who has had sixteen litters and never left her cage. If limiting to dogs over 4 months of age, I’d bump that limit downwards, maybe to 15-20. Of course, the Black Helicopter crowd will scream blue murder about inspections, too.

    And yes, no exemptions for rescues or “shelters” or “sanctuaries.” Anyone can designate her hoarding habit a “rescue,” and this is increasingly popular nowadays.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — July 19, 2009 @ 8:54 am

  64. The OTHER Pat wrote: “Smaki, this discussion has meandered a bit. What topics of interest are you looking to read about?”

    And here I am taking even further off track and making Gina regret her invitation to post more ;)

    Suggestions for blogs similiar to this one would be welcome. That is, written by breeders or those not opposed to it but not necessarily all about breeding. Books or articles about the challenges that ethical breeders face and the history of breeding and how it’s evolved.

    Basically anything that people should read to better understand your point of view (that there are ethical breeders, that purposeful breeding doesn’t contribute to pet overpopulation, that breeding at all is justifiable*). You know, those books you wish you could whap ignorant people over the head with and say “Read this!”. Whap me!

    *assuming that those are your views! I’ve been reading long enough to recognize names but not to necessarily recall people’s opinions.

    Comment by Smaki — July 19, 2009 @ 8:57 am

  65. Mary Mary, you posted while I was typing, thanks for the suggestions.

    Comment by Smaki — July 19, 2009 @ 9:01 am

  66. As it exists now, in my county if I want to have 4 (or more) dogs I have to obtain a multiple animal permit and my home would then be subject to warrantless inspections. I’ve no idea what the criteria are for this permit since there is nothing stipulated in the municipal code or on the county’s animal services website. On what grounds can they reject my application? And if they reject it, what happens when I need to get another pup to be my next SAR dog?

    Two serious dog people are in my home. One actively competes in dogsports, the other participates in K9 SAR. We don’t breed. Each could have a dog he/she is working/training now, as well as a retired dog, or an up and coming youngster. It would be easy for us to have 4 dogs (we are currently legal and under the limit). I am loathe to give up my Constitutional right against warrantless searches of my home and don’t see this as a sufficient justification for government to take that right away from me.

    This kind of pet limit law is extremely common in California, with limits ranging between 2 to 4 dogs + cats.

    My proposed alternative to AB 241 as written above could address the animal welfare concerns of large operations, and if written correctly could preempt these draconian local limit laws.

    Comment by LauraS — July 19, 2009 @ 9:13 am

  67. A point of clarification: when I write or speak about SB 250 and other MSN laws/ordinances/bills I speak on behalf of Save Our Dogs. When it’s about any other issue including AB 241, that’s just me talking and not Save Our Dogs.

    Comment by LauraS — July 19, 2009 @ 9:26 am

  68. SemavilLady, bestuvall, I’m tried of every single discussion of what’s good instantly getting derailed into being about what’s BAD.

    I’m saying small home-based breeders should stop being ashamed and instead be proud, because family pets should come from family homes. We should have a positive message that we/they are the best place to obtain a family pet, and why.

    If you want to instantly turn that into a screed on how we’re dissing the “high volume commercial breeders,” that’s on you, not on me. What I’m advocating is that the best place to get a family pet is from a small, home-based breeder, and that such breeders should stop believing that producing happy, stable, healthy companion animals is evil, nor that putting that type of breeding forward as a model is the same as taking someone else’s rights away. That’s absurd. It’s un-American!

    It is the two of YOU who extrapolated a universe of things from that proposition. Those positions are not inherent in that idea. And if “high volume commercial breeders” can’t stand the heat, they need to come up with a better argument than mine, or get out of the kitchen.

    This is, by the way, what free speech and a free market look like.

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 19, 2009 @ 9:27 am

  69. I want to make one thing absolutely clear: I have no problem with kennel-based dog breeding for working dogs, for those breeds for whom it’s appropriate. I think that dogs should be raised in more or less the same kind of situation that they’ll be living in as adults, to optimize their adaptation to their work and make them as happy, healthy and mentally challenged (ie, not bored out of their freaking minds until they go kennel crazy) as possible.

    Dogs who thrive in kennel environments are dogs who are leaving said kennel every single day to be trained and worked. Those can be the absolute happiest of dogs.

    There are, however, many, many working dogs who are/were also family companions (I’m discussing dogs in general over time now, not necessarily just the here and now). This is true of many hunting breeds, some hounds, and some of the working, herding and guard breeds. I have respect for the work of dogs, just as I have respect for the “job” of family pet.

    And that’s why saying family pets should come from family homes isn’t anti-working kennels. It’s also not anti-shelter/rescue, because I’m a huge believer in the idea of shelters as re-homing centers that are designed to be more like home in their settings, and also based on foster networks and collaboration with rescue groups, both of which are mostly home-based adoption systems.

    Kennels are not good environments for companion animals, not to be bred in, not to live their lives in, and not even to hang out in while waiting to be adopted. If you don’t believe that, please, by all means, call any shelter medicine program at any vet school in this country and ask them if they think dogs are better off in the shelter or in a foster home. Then get back to me.

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 19, 2009 @ 9:35 am

  70. Christie, the problem with that is that it’s too simple and makes too much sense. Dogs being raised for the work they’re to do, whether that’s night-hunting coonhounds or family pets.

    Family pets from family homes.

    I do love this, since it covers breeders and pushes foster programs for rescues and shelters.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 9:47 am

  71. It holds everyone to the same standard, too, which I like…

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 19, 2009 @ 9:55 am

  72. One more thing: I find it absolutely absurd that so many people seem to think that pointing out that the best family pets come from family homes amounts to taking someone else’s rights away. That makes no sense at all. If it did, the entire advertising/PR/marketing industries would be shut down overnight, not to mention all forms of journalism including this blog.

    You have the right to eat every meal at McDonald’s. I have the right to point out that’s bad for your health, or even to write about a study that shows negative impact on health, or attention span in school, or whatever. I can mention that fast food businesses aren’t good for civic life. I can make any argument I want, actually, and it doesn’t amount to taking away McDonald’s right to open their stores nor someone’s right to eat there.

    The remedy for speech you don’t like is MORE SPEECH. If my argument sucks, present your own, and back it up. If you have data McDonald’s foods are good for people or the community, or that puppies mass-produced in high volume and big ag settings are better than puppies born in someone’s bedroom, use that data to rebut my position. Or if you can’t prove it with facts, at least put together a better argument than mine.

    But if you can’t prove it or come up with a better argument, well… like I said before, that’s freedom of expression and a free market. That’s how they work.

    So enough with the idea that promoting small, home-based breeders for family dogs is taking away the rights of the poor high volume breeders/millers. That’s just false.

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 19, 2009 @ 10:02 am

  73. Of course, the Black Helicopter crowd will scream blue murder about inspections, too.

    That’s because they’ve all heard stories about dog seizures from kennels that if one logically connects the dots did not appear to be justified. There are some well-documented stories like those reported in the ABC news 20/20 documentary “Cruelty to Owners” (which had been on Youtube but was removed).

    It has gotten to the point that some are assuming that all kennel seizures and associated animal cruelty charges must have been unjustified. It’s not easy to know the truth, given that the news media will usually uncritically report the point of view of those who conducted the seizure and not much else.

    We know that many (I’m guessing most) of those who work in spca and humane societies buy into the nonsense that if you breed dogs you are killing dogs in shelters. Somebody who believes that is unlikely to be an unbiased inspector. Many laws empower spca and humane society “officers” as if they were government animal control officers. Private entities, conducting government law enforcement business.

    The devil is in the details. If the government is going to do inspections for animal welfare purposes they need to use unbiased government inspectors with adequate training for that job. Joining an spca or humane society doesn’t make one an automatic expert on animal husbandry, and we should not rely on claims from these groups that their “humane officers” possess that expertise.

    Comment by LauraS — July 19, 2009 @ 10:35 am

  74. Gina, I can’t thank you enough for this article. I am a regular contributor to some purebred dog mailing lists, and it frustrates me to no end how readily some anti-AR folks actually attempt to defend puppy millers and backyard breeders. It’s the old, ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us’ black and white attitude that is so antiquated.

    I am not a breeder…yet, but I am a big fan of my chosen breed. My ambition is to become a respectable, responsible breeder. I want my breed to be the absolute best it is capable of being. This means standing alone if necessary, decrying the puppy miller, the BYBs and the AR-agencies’ attempts at lumping all breeders — good and bad — together.

    If responsible breeders do not work to separate themselves from the millers and BYBs, the AR activists will not hesitate to put us all in the same filthy box.

    DKB

    Comment by DKB — July 19, 2009 @ 10:43 am

  75. Yeah, I have to say that between the inspectors who shrug off dogs with nails curved into their pads living on feces-encrusted wire and the humaniacs who would cheerfully drag someone’s beloved show dog away for a petty violation of some code — or false allegation of one! — the whole inspections idea is a fiasco. I really have no clue how to fix it, but empowering humane societies and the buddies of the local miller to do it is definitely wrong.

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 19, 2009 @ 10:45 am

  76. Can you legally define a puppy mill? NO - because there IS no definition. USDA commercial facilities are inspected - and for the most part, pass with good scores. Think about it - IF you were making your livelihood off animals, it would behoove you to keep them in the best possible condition.

    Prop 2 was LOADED with lies and mistruths! I grew up in farm country - and on a chicken farm. First - it had NOTHING to do with cows, yet that was in the ad spots. Why? Chickens aren’t as endearing. Second - eggshells are permeable - meaning, if they are dropped in poop, they have a good chance of having the salmonella bacteria go through the shell. Third - chickens FLOCK together, they LIKE to be in close proximity to each other.

    So - get your facts straight, find out the truths, and STOP listening to groups that are actually ANTI-ANIMALS!! Ask Wayne: one generation and they’re out? I have no reason to perpetuate breeds??

    Prop 2 - an example - was to make chicken farmers leave Calif - making the cost of eggs and chicken skyrocket. What used to be a cheap source of protein will be denied to Californians. Think about it!!! Knowing the people I’ve met in the shelters/humane societies - I do NOT want those fools running around with guns!!!

    Do you want a world devoid of domestic animals, especially pets for your children and grandchildren???

    Comment by Animal Lover — July 19, 2009 @ 11:40 am

  77. Comment by Animal Lover — July 19, 2009 @ 11:40 am

    Do you want a world devoid of domestic animals, especially pets for your children and grandchildren???

    No, I want a world in which family pets were raised in family homes.

    What part of your post has anything to do with that?

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 19, 2009 @ 11:46 am

  78. Hi, Animal Lover! This is exactly what I mean about the “black helicopter” stuff.

    First, even if I shared your world view, which I don’t, this is just plain bad messaging. It appeals only to the converted.

    Second, it doesn’t matter if I can or can’t define a “puppy mill,” because if we’re saying that the best place to get a family dog is from a family home — a small, home-based breeder — well, amazingly, it’s very easy to define a family home, and everything else is just NOT a family home.

    Third, Gina and I have both said we’re against legislation. We’re talking about marketing, about framing, about making an argument. Here’s mine: Family pets should come from family homes.

    What yours sounds like to me is: EVERYTHING EVERYONE ELSE SAYS IS A LIE! EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES IT IS A DUPE! THERE WAS A SECOND GUNMAN! WHO WAS ON THE GRASSY KNOLL????

    Can’t you see how really ineffective this is? Frankly, I could make a better argument for a position I don’t even hold than most of its advocates do! Indeed, a couple of people in this thread already did, by invoking the big estate kennels of old.

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 19, 2009 @ 11:47 am

  79. Animal Lover, I’m also curious about something.

    You told the LA Weekly that if small breeders are forced to spay/neuter their pets here in California, the market will be flooded with sickly pets bred in Mexico, and from the massive breeding operations in Missouri and Kansas that supply pet stores; you also said those high volume operations are why shelters are full. It looks like you have a different view now? Can you explain what changed your mind? Or were you misquoted?

    It’s actually a pretty good article, true journalistic balance instead of “he said/she said” crap. But if it misrepresented your position, let me know.

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 19, 2009 @ 12:01 pm

  80. Animal Lover, do YOU even believe the nonsense you just posted?

    I suppose you think chickens like having their beaks seared off to keep from pecking each other to death, too. Dear, I have chickens. Flocking together is quite different from being jammed four to a foot-square cage for an entire short miserable life.

    Seriously … at least be honest, at least with yourself. Say that you don’t give a damn how much animals suffer, as long as you save a little on a dozen eggs.

    And frankly, if you think battery-caged eggs are such a bargain, you might want to factor in the cost of salmonella, which seems to be a huge factor in the recent recalls of battery-farmed eggs and products made with them. Seems as worked up as you get over chicken poop, there’s really a big problem with battery-caged hens.

    Geez, do some basic fact-checking before posting.

    Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs, a/k/a “factory farms”) are more than cruel to animals — they are a threat to the environment, public health and national security. It’ll take you about a half-hour of using Teh Googles to learn that.

    Cheap food has a high price.

    Honestly, I don’t want any fools running around with guns. So please turn yours in. I’ll keep mine, thanks.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 12:02 pm

  81. In order to have an adequate discussion of puppy mills, one needs to have a definition of what a puppy mill is that can be agreed upon. In all the discussions I have seen on this topic, the definition is missing, which leads one to guess at what, exactly IS a puppy mill.

    Nosing around the HSUS sites. I was not able to find a definition of a puppy mill that they use. From their actions, both their complicity in raids on so called “puppy mills” and their political actions in attempting, and far too often succeeding, to pass laws to limit the ability of dogs to be bred and limiting the numbers of dogs one person can keep, it seems that a puppy mill is any person who breeds their dogs and sells the puppies.

    They also seem to believe that anyone who does not have a government bureaucracy looking over their shoulders is a puppy mill by default. Those that do have a bureaucracy looking over their shoulders are also probably puppy mills as well, because the bureaucracy is not doing their job.

    So, without a good working definition of what a puppy mill is, how can one actually discuss whether they are good or bad, and how they should be dealt with. This may be as good a place to start as any.

    Minimum standards would be type of crate or kennel the dogs are kept in. How much room should be allotted per dog, which, for convenience sake should probably be grouped by breed size, like toy etc.

    Sanitation would need to play a role, we do not need the dogs to be sitting in their own waste. Exercise needs for the breed would need to be met also, I would think, so there would need to be a provision for this as well.

    Those are just some thoughts I had, and, as I am not a breeder, nor am I really the dog person in this household, my knowledge is limited in this area, so I would leave it up to those who have the knowledge to flesh something out and to start spreading it about.

    Comment by Lynne's Honey — July 19, 2009 @ 12:05 pm

  82. I noticed this kind of weird backwards reasoning about ag during the election.

    Some opponents of Prop 2 made that “free ranging chicken eggs have poop on them” argument, and I was like… huh? Aren’t you the ones defending agriculture and family farms and saying how a bunch of yuppified foodie city slickers didn’t understand the reality of food production?

    Then you turn around and whine that there is CHICKEN POOP ON THE EGGS? Hello, yes, chickens lay their eggs out of the same orifice as they pee and poo, and they always have. In nature and sustainable, humane ag, that’s not such a big deal, because the natural airflow and light keeps bacterial populations to a minimum.

    In industrial ag, they don’t care that the eggs and the hens are smeared with poop, because they let the eggs roll down a chute and wash them with industrial chemicals to (try and) kill the bacteria that are present in high numbers due to overcrowding. They also give the hens antibiotics in their feed, ditto.

    But yes, by all means, let’s champion that in the name of FARMING.

    Real farmers actually know where chicken eggs come from. My backyard eggs have visible poop on them. I’d rather eat them — I DO eat them — in preference to some bleach-bathed industrially produced egg from an antibiotic-fed battery hen. Even if I didn’t care about the welfare of the hens, which I do, I’d still feel that way. Because they taste better, and they’re better for the planet and the animals and for agriculture in general.

    So don’t turn around and tell me I’m too much of a “city gal” to understand eggs. I’m not the one who doesn’t know where eggs come from — the people squealing about poop on free range eggs are.

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 19, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

  83. Lynne’s Honey, I’m not really interested in defining what’s bad and what I’m against. I’d rather focus on what’s good and what I’m for.

    It doesn’t serve my goal, or the welfare of dogs, nor the welfare of families who bring dogs into their homes, nor society as a whole, to get sucked into these endless circular debates about what is and isn’t a “puppy mill.”

    All I know is, if you’re breeding family pets, you should do it in a family home, because that’s where the best, healthiest, and most adaptable and stable pets come from.

    Why waste our breath defining a puppy mill? Let’s just promote what we all know is the best place for companion puppies to come from!

    The public hates negative messaging, anyway. They’re hungry for positive messages and positive change, not this endless fighting and opposing and negativity. Negative messaging can be effective in the very short run, but it always runs out of steam very, very fast.

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 19, 2009 @ 12:19 pm

  84. I hope everyone is noting I’m selflessly helping Gina get to a hundred comments here. I’m not holding back AT ALL.

    See how serious I am about POSITIVE CHANGE?

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 19, 2009 @ 12:20 pm

  85. Minimum standards would be type of crate or kennel the dogs are kept in. How much room should be allotted per dog, which, for convenience sake should probably be grouped by breed size, like toy etc.

    Sanitation would need to play a role, we do not need the dogs to be sitting in their own waste. Exercise needs for the breed would need to be met also, I would think, so there would need to be a provision for this as well.

    Comment by Lynne’s Honey — July 19, 2009

    Um, hello! Why don’t you go up-thread and read a bit.

    I don’t care about cleaning up filthy puppy mills or giving their miserable “breeding stock” a little more room.

    We have known for DECADES the importance of having puppies raised in the home to prepare them for a life in someone else’s home. Start at Fuller and Scott and read forward for half a century.

    Family pets are not livestock. You set sanitation standards until the cows come home, and that is not going to change the fact that large-scale commercial breeding facilities are not ideal for the hand-crafting of a family dog.

    Family pets come from family homes.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 12:25 pm

  86. Darn! And here I thought *I* was being so surreptitious about watching the count so that I could be the first to announce when it got there . . . . . . . .

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 19, 2009 @ 12:25 pm

  87. Does it count as 100 when the author herself posts half the comments?

    OK … I’m off to go learn how to use the food processor I bought in the last century. I trust it actually works. It’s either this or eBay, since it IS NIB.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 12:27 pm

  88. I hope everyone is noting I’m selflessly helping Gina get to a hundred comments here. I’m not holding back AT ALL.

    Let’s get ‘er done.

    Comment by LauraS — July 19, 2009 @ 12:31 pm

  89. “If responsible breeders do not work to separate themselves from the millers and BYBs, the AR activists will not hesitate to put us all in the same filthy box.
    DKB”
    What you fail to realise is that Ar’s ALREADY do this with NO hesitation at all..here is a quote from the Social Compassion in Legislations blog. (sponsor and authors of SB 250 and supporters of the HSUS bill AB 241). They claimed that all of the people in Sacramento who were there to defend their rights to have an intact animal in the state of Califorina were “backyard breeders”.. everyone of of us.. here is the comment about HSUS/SCIL sponsored legislation:
    “This week Sacramento was overrun with hundreds of backyard breeders, gathering to oppose SB 250 and AB 241. It was quite a sight. Unlike you, they have plenty of time to travel to the Capital, because their day job is sitting in their house tending to puppies while waiting for the females to come into heat again”
    Is that Black Helicopter enough for you?
    Now do you really think that EVERY perosn there was a ‘backyard breeder”? I was there.. I am a backyard breeder as I have stated. There is nothing wrong with being a backyard breeder. I am also an AKC judge, president of my local breed club and legislative liason for my national club. In the mean time, I also have a “real job” but here I am painted with the brush of a “backyard breeder’ as if it were not my RIGHT to protest the passage of bills that I think may be harmful to my passion in life.
    And don’t think for one minute that you won’t also be tarred and featherd too.
    But that is ok.. as Allardyce T Merriwhether once said.. “Licked..I ain’t licked. I am
    tarred and feathered, that’s all”

    Gina says:
    “(The ironically named bestuvall gave the number and some vague assertions, and that’s it.)
    It only taks a moment to find out information on the bill.. just “google “it. i would expect taht someone who is protesting “puppy mills’ should know about a bill that the HSUS calls “the puppy mill bill”.
    By the way my kennel name of Bestuvall comes from my grandfathers very successful business of the same name. I loved my grandfather. He loved dogs, was totally deaf and had one of the first trained hearing dogs in the USA. There is noting ironic about it. I am proud to carry on his name and the tradition of loving dogs and wanting them to be the BEST they can be.

    Comment by bestuvall — July 19, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

  90. Um - it was Lis that said “The ironically named bestuvall” . . . . . .

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 19, 2009 @ 1:43 pm

  91. Cr@p. They named AB 241 “The Responsible Breeder Act”.

    Better copyright “Ethical Breeder” before they steal that one too . . . . . . . .

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 19, 2009 @ 1:53 pm

  92. Gina says:
    “(The ironically named bestuvall gave the number and some vague assertions, and that’s it.)
    It only taks a moment to find out information on the bill.. just “google “it. i would expect taht someone who is protesting “puppy mills’ should know about a bill that the HSUS calls “the puppy mill bill”.

    Comment by bestuvall — July 19, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

    ——

    I didn’t write that, as has been noted. Not only have I mentioned the bill numbers countless times, I’ve linked to them. Countless times. And, I’ve even read them. Countless times.

    Seriously … you could try to take just a few seconds to check your facts before blasting. As it stands now, you’re like 0-for-a couple dozen in the fact-check department.

    What the woman behind SB 250 (forced spay-neuter) says to rouse her troops is just as big a pack of lies as those you’ve tried to spread here. I’m not spreading her BS, and I’m not letting you spread yours.

    As for WHY the forced spay-neuter advocates can so easily toss ethical breeders in with puppy-milling scum: Look in the mirror. You’re the one defending them. You make it EASY to condemn all breeders by saying we are all the same. Because you’re already said that.

    I said in the original post: Shame on you for getting in bed with people who treat pets like that. You hate the HSUS and you don’t trust them. Fine. Don’t send them money and don’t picket. Call them on it when they’re wrong (we do).

    But for the love of doG don’t defend puppy-milling scum because the HSUS is fighting them. Just being against something doesn’t get us anywhere.

    Showing the way forward does.

    —-

    I am proud to carry on his name and the tradition of loving dogs and wanting them to be the BEST they can be.

    Comment by bestuvall — July 19, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

    And exactly HOW does that fit in with your embrace of people who keep animals in small, crap-filled cages exposed to the elements and breed them until they die?

    Wait … wait … choppers coming … I bet you hear them, don’t you? You’d better go find a bunker so you can be safe. Better stay in there, just to be certain. Don’t take the laptop, either. I hear they can trace you that way.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 2:41 pm

  93. 93.

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 19, 2009 @ 3:13 pm

  94. You posted “93” while I was on the PHONE WITH YOU?

    94.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 3:16 pm

  95. This is cheating, by the way.

    95.

    I gotta get back to the editing. Later, folks ..

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

  96. No one is blasting except you and yours… my facts are checked. Did you read the SCIL quote? Where do you put them in your spectrum?As for a AK 47. ( a quote from someone other than Gina). I don’t own a gun.. but I defend your right to own one.. or even 50..
    AB 241. the “puppy mill bill” sponsored by the HSUS.. limits owners to less than 50 intact animals on their property at any one time . Here is some quotes from the bill as it stands today:
    The premise of the bill:
    “SEC. 2. Section 597.8 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
    597.8. (a) No individual or business that buys or sells dogs or
    cats to the public or at wholesale shall own, possess, control, or
    otherwise have charge or custody of more than a combined total of 50
    dogs and cats with intact sexual organs.”
    Pretty clear fact. no more than 50.
    and if you are found wiht more than 50:
    “An individual or business
    that must reduce the number of intact dogs or cats in order to comply
    with this section shall spay or neuter the excess animals or sell,
    transfer, or relinquish the excess animals. If necessary, any
    euthanasia procedures shall be performed by a licensed veterinarian.”
    So castrate/ sell/ transfer/ relinquish or kill are your choices here. But NO ONE will be allowed according to this bill to own more that 50 intact animals, including police dog trainers or service dog trainers or even a feral cat colony caretaker.
    Bill text can be found at:http://www.totalcapitol.com/?bill_id=8727
    Those are facts.
    The bill also states;
    “Because this bill would create a new crime, it would impose a
    state-mandated local program”
    Fact: this bill creates new crimes.
    This bill also states that by having 50 intact animals on your property you are guilty of a crime:
    “A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
    Fact: This bill creates new criminals.
    That is enough facts for one day. If you are intersted you can read the whole bill yourself.
    Feel free to check these facts.

    Comment by bestuvall — July 19, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

  97. Great. Now you’re 1-for-whatever in the fact department, but all you’ve proven is that you can cut and paste the text of a bill. A bill, incidentally, that I haven’t supported.

    Have you read anyone here advocating for AB 241? Have you seen anyone here writing fan letters to Judie Mancuso, the spittle-spewing ball of hate behind forced spay-neuter efforts who has used the defense of puppy millers by otherwise reputable breeders as proof that all breeders are the same? Use the blog search!

    From what I can tell, everyone in this comment thread has expressed reservations with regard to the idea that owning 50 intact animals automatically makes you bad, but owning 80 neutered ones makes you good. I’ve also personally written that the way to end puppy millers is by getting people to not buy from them, because it’s tricky business to legislate something out of existence. (Reference: Prohibition or, currently, marijuana, the latter of which is apparently California’s largest cash crop. Reference: Smoking, perfectly legal, but so utterly un-cool the President puffs his ciggies in private.)

    LauraS’s personal suggestions about making the bill “gonad neutral” makes sense to me, but as it stands now I’m not thrilled with the proposed legislation.

    You’re done here, bestuvall. You can neither get the facts right nor comprehend the written word. You just want to repeat your BS talking points and spew your HSUS hate. Tiresome, and a waste of all our time.

    The politics of “with us or agin’ us” doesn’t get us anywhere — although it does raise a lot of money for lobbyists and special-interest groups.

    If you can’t be part of the solution — even if that’s a new solution that needs to be found — you can just keep fussing about those Black Helicopters.

    But do it somewhere else.

    —-

    Too bad. When bestuvall came back with more factual inaccuracies, that would have been closer to 100. :::sigh:::

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

  98. By the way, it was an AR-15, not an AK-47. Mentioned in comment No. 45.

    Fact check = Fail.

    Again.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 4:30 pm

  99. I would like to just say a quick hello to those who have professed to coming from the anti-breeder perspective and coming here to learn.

    Welcome! A couple of quick points to help out.

    —Many of the folks on here have never bred, or no longer breed or breed once in a blue moon
    —No one here, to my knowledge, is making a living off of breeding pets, or even supplementing income, as day to day, year to year costs of maintaining the dogs, testing for health etc… FAR eclipses any potential profit
    —Most everyone here, and most hobby breeders in general, have other fulltime employment, pay taxes and make their way in the world as best they can.
    —Most of the folks who comment here are ardently concerned with animal welfare, many have or currently do, rescue. Rescue and breeding in a responsible manner are not only NOT conflicting pursuits, most of us who do both feel they are in fact part and parcel of one another
    —-While the comments are not flooded by breeders who rescue, stand behind pups for life etc… they are not in fact “rare birds” I know many many people who do both. Believe it or not, a fair number of the breed columns and main articles in publications like AKC’s Gazette are dedicated to rescue.
    —-As far as those who show AKC breeds, it’s important to know we are not members of the AKC, only clubs can be members. And yes it was the breed clubs that had a fit over AKC’s dumbass Petland idea, which means that basically breeders squelched it. While it’s not universal, I know that many many breeders would happily pay more, myself included, to register dogs if AKC would get out of courting GD puppymills.
    —-Most of us respect the hell out of folks who devote themselves to rescue. we respect your efforts and understand how frustrating it can be. The people on this blog who comment often are pet owners, rescuers, some breeders, serious working dog trainers/handlers, owner exhibitors etc who would by and large like to overhaul much of the SYSTEM of “traditional” sheltering which refuses to accept there can be new ideas.
    —There is, to my knowledge, NO ONE here who comments regularly who is ANTI-SPAY/NEUTER. But plenty who are against MANDATORY, FORCED sterilization. The most common surgical reason I’m at the vet is for s/n on rescues, or my own pets or stray cats.
    —There IS tremendous frustration when s/n is held up as the water mark of responsible ownership. How bout training, socialization, exercise, attention, grooming and sanitation as the key factors instead?
    —If people here seem to have a hard time accepting that s/n is the only way to prevent accidents, it’s because it’s not. Lots of people here, and the majority in Europe, keep intact dogs without rampant unwanted pregnancy. the occasional accident in Sweden or Switzerland for example is not a disaster as there is more demand than supply for mixed breed pups.
    —People you may know who have had oops litters were not following basic protocols for intact dogs. And NO ONE teaches these anymore. Vets USED too. But now even suggesting that there is an alternative to spay/neuter is taboo. Any attempt to offer alternatives is to be avoided, any risk of S/N is to be downplayed as if by discussing these things, you are literally killing more pets. It’s like the assertion that “Teaching sexual education encourages promiscuity” . Managing an intact female dog for a few weeks twice a year, and recognizing the signs of heat is not rocket science. Anyone who has an opps litter because they let a girl in heat outside unattended did not get a good briefing!
    —Most of the commenters on here are of course going to be concerned about the effects of punitive legislation of sparse or recovering gene pools, valuable working dogs. BUT for myself and I suspect most everyone else here, there is a moral imperative to stand
    up against proposed laws that will KILL more dogs, BREAK the human animal bond when animals are impounded, seized or relinquished due to unreasoned law, and COST everyone, including those who can least afford it.

    OK, Rant/explanation done.

    :)

    Comment by JenniferJ — July 19, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

  100. !00

    XD

    Comment by JenniferJ — July 19, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

  101. 99 is a keeper. :)

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

  102. Thanks, I hope no one gets offended by the use of the word “professed” in the opening, It sounds a little snarky now that I read it.

    it really is a snark-intentioned free comment. :)

    Comment by JenniferJ — July 19, 2009 @ 5:19 pm

  103. I do think many of the breeders who feel they have to defend puppy-millers are themselves otherwise responsible folks scared out of their socks by the spectre of Wayne Pacelle with red skin and horns as he’s presented in their echo chambers.

    That’s why I used “hate AND fear” in the headline. Neither are particularly good problem-solving emotions, but they sure are motivating.

    As it happens, I have met Mr. Pacelle, and didn’t observe either devil horns nor red skin. (On the other hand, the restaurant wasn’t particularly well-lit.)

    I think I have mentioned here in the past, almost the first thing I said to him was, “What kind of animal advocacy group doesn’t jump on a pet-food recall that kills thousands of animals?”

    And then I asked him what it was like to be on “The Daily Show” with Jon Stewart.

    The first question was because they blew it, big-time. The second was because I was nosy.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 5:37 pm

  104. Gina: When will you report on how Jan McHugh-Smith of SF-SPCA is trying to END the No-Kill shelter policy in San Francisco? When will you report how SF-SPCA terminated the decades long hearing dog program because of supposed lack of funds, then took those funds and gave a $500,000 home loan to her assistant imported from Colorado? Why not use one of the longtime volunteers? Why don’t you call me for a REAL STORY? 650-296-2169 Let’s STOP McHugh-Smith NOW!

    Comment by Diane Amble — July 19, 2009 @ 6:06 pm

  105. Hey, Diane? When will you learn to use the search function? Because we’ve been covering that story all along. I’ve written extensively about the closing of the Hearing Dog Program, and interviewed people who used it, and one of the fired trainers.

    It’s not even like you’d have to learn to use the Google. We have a search box RIGHT ON THIS SITE.

    http://www.petconnection.com/b.....am-closed/

    http://www.petconnection.com/b.....isco-spca/

    http://www.petconnection.com/b.....-shelters/

    http://www.petconnection.com/blog/martha-hoffman/

    http://www.petconnection.com/2.....-responds/

    http://www.petconnection.com/b.....-petition/

    http://www.petconnection.com/b.....ugh-smith/

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 19, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

  106. Just to get a couple of points out of the way, I am not a breeder, I own two dogs, and both are neutered. I am acquainted with quite a few breeders, and I would like to point out that almost all of them have contracts which require the return of the dog to them if the buyer can no longer keep it, and some have sued when they learned this term was breached. So I’d say few if any of their dogs are populating shelters. They fit your description of home-based ethical breeders. So my stake in this is that I want to see good breeding continue to be legal, and I don’t want the breeders I respect to be treated as puppy millers when they sweat and cry and worry themselves sick over every litter, from breeding to placement.

    But this is my beef. HSUS gets on the air and pleads for money from the public regularly. They show up on my Facebook page as well. They cultivate the impression that the money they are soliciting will be used for assisting animals in need. In fact, their advertising spikes when disaster strikes, such as Hurricane Katrina. But that is not how the vast majority of their money is used. Their focus has become lobbying and pushing legislation.

    But that’s not where the public thinks their money is going.

    In fact, I completely oppose pet stores and puppy mills, but if HSUS is going to use the money it solicits to target pet stores and puppy mills, then its commercials should say that. Because if people want their money go directly assist animals in immediate need, they should be donating to their local shelters or rescue groups.

    As to whether HSUS will actually give more than lip service to what was actually a pretty wishy-washy, weaselly-worded — was it called an accord? I’d need to look it up, and it doesn’t really matter — regarding fight ring bust dogs, that remains to be seen. The recent huge bust will put it to the test, and we will see. Getting rid of Godwin would be a nice start.

    I totally agree, legislation is a horrible answer, mostly because the legislation is written so badly. And I hear people react to legislation which can be terribly abused with statements like “oh, that will never be enforced.” Really? You’re placing a lot of trust in the authorities, much more than I have.

    And I totally agree that law enforcement powers should NOT be delegated to humane societies, but should be limited to well-trained, qualified, accountable public servants.

    Sorry to be so long-winded, but HSUS has given me far more reason to be distrustful than the “black helicopter people.”

    Comment by Susan — July 19, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

  107. Guys, I think when we inadvertently linked “dog breeders” and “black helicopters” in the same page, it was like we called them here.

    But, like, way to prove a point about the vigor of the paranoia and plain nasty that grows like pokeweed in a pile of horseshit.

    (I was out weeding today while the Michigan Militia broke in here and started folding tinfoil into hats — and guys — no less than five layers or the mind-control rays can still get through.)

    Comment by H. Houlahan — July 19, 2009 @ 7:48 pm

  108. Heather, did you actually read my post before writing your snarky response? Because I actually agreed with much of what has been said by Gina and Christie. My distrust of badly written laws and handing out more police power than necessary comes from being a defense attorney, not breeding dogs.

    Comment by Susan — July 19, 2009 @ 8:00 pm

  109. Truth. When I bought my first house, unbeknownst to me, nearly all my neighbors were members of The Militia.

    There were absolutely no break-ins, vandalism or related crimes in that neighborhood. You could leave your doors unlocked because of the fear of heavily armed militia members.

    There was a lot of automatic weapons, poaching, home-schooling and 4x4s on steroids there. I think they only wore the tinfoil hats in the privacy of their own homes. Perhaps to ward off the occasional IRS or ATF raid.

    Comment by Janeen — July 19, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

  110. Hi Gina,
    I am very disappointed in you. Very. Very.
    It is one thing to protest a puppy mill.
    It is another thing to JOIN with HSUS to do it.
    HSUS is the most dangerous animal rights group in the US…and even world wide. They have the funds and they have the goal to eliminate animal agriculture and pet ownership, given time, they will succeed… unless intelligent educated animal lovers get OFF the HSUS bandwagon. So, I am very disappointed that you have made this serious political decision. It does not help animals to negotiate with or cooperate with HSUS…the animals will always lose in the long run. That is the reality.

    Comment by Laurella Desborough — July 19, 2009 @ 8:10 pm

  111. I went to grad school in Boston.

    It’s really safe in old Mafia neighborhoods too.

    Until you accidentally park in Gino’s mother’s spot on the street.

    But the real question, Janeen:

    AK-47 or AR-15?

    Comment by H. Houlahan — July 19, 2009 @ 8:23 pm

  112. Well, geez, Laurella, your disappointment and a coupla bucks will buy me a cuppa coffee. And believe me, the coffee is more important. But thanks for thinking of me.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

  113. Susan wrote:

    Heather, did you actually read my post before writing your snarky response?

    Err, no Susan, in point of fact, I didn’t.

    Because I wasn’t responding to you.

    Your comment hadn’t appeared yet when I wrote mine.

    I still haven’t read it.

    But hey, if you feel anything I said applies to you, go for it, I won’t deny you that mantle.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — July 19, 2009 @ 8:28 pm

  114. I take it all back.

    Black helicopters + dog breeders on the same blog post does not attract the tinfoil hat crowd.

    It actually creates new unique individuals who personify this exact nexus.

    Like the way that the act of googling something that doesn’t exist calls it into being.

    The metaphysics is mind-boggling.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — July 19, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

  115. Susan, I am in complete agreement that the HSUS has a lot of problems with its highly lucrative and misleading fund-raising efforts. Not to defend the HSUS, but their tactics are pretty similar to a lot of other groups. Terrierman has a great post on fund-raising, and to my knowledge the HSUS has not taken him up on his offer to go through their books.

    I don’t think good breeders scared into defending puppy-milling scum are dangerous. I just think they’re a) wrong, and b) helping to advance the idea that all breeders are the same thrown around by hateballs like Judie Mancuso.

    It’s not enough to say, “If the HSUS is X, I am -X.” As Christie has written in this thread, we need to find a way to set good breeders, good owners and good shelters / rescue groups apart. That is a lot more complicated, and a lot harder.

    On both sides, fear and hate has proven to be much easier.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

  116. Heather wrote:

    …But hey, if you feel anything I said applies to you, go for it, I won’t deny you that mantle.

    _____

    Nope. Which is what I said. But does mocking the commenters, the MAJORITY of whom have been more or less civil and/or literate (compared to some comment lists I’ve read, certainly) really promote Gina’s point or persuade anyone? Because it has just become repetitive at this point, rather than witty (and you usually are witty.).

    Comment by Susan — July 19, 2009 @ 8:55 pm

  117. Susan, please know that people do NOT have to agree with me or any other blogger here. Personally, I have changed own views based on the points people have made here.

    The problem is there’s a lot of folks — on both sides of the forced spay-neuter debate — who believe the endless repetition of unsupported talking points is a discussion. I honestly have no patience for the parroting of talking points.

    THAT, not disagreement, is what gets people bumped, and it happens pretty rarely.

    Most caring and intelligent people eventually drop their BS and come to the table. If they can’t or don’t want to, they leave or get bounced. Mostly the latter.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 19, 2009 @ 9:07 pm

  118. Golly look at all the comments!! No lack of interest or passion, for sure.

    I just wanted to say that JenniferJ’s comment (#99) totally kicks ass and addresses one of my personal pet peeves… that so many people nowadays seem to think that surgical sterilization is as vital a component of responsible pet ownership as is, say, providing food, water or shelter.

    When the reality is that a responsible pet owner doesn’t allow accidental reproduction. Spaying or neutering is the easiest way to achieve this (easy for the owner, not necessarily for the animal) but it certainly isn’t the only way.

    Comment by Barb — July 19, 2009 @ 9:08 pm

  119. I agree. It would be terrific if we really had a national organization — hey, we could have two — dedicated to animal welfare. One could focus on assisting local shelters and rescue groups, especially in times of disaster or need (huge puppy mill busts, huge fight ring busts, natural disasters, epidemics. “Here we are. We have money. We can get more. How can we help.”
    I can imagine young people falling all over themselves for the chance to work with such a group.

    Organization Number 2: How do we phase out the puppy mill without killing the family breeder. Can it be done without legislation.

    How do we move shelters back on track to a low kill/no kill scenario. I work with a struggling rescue which has many volunteers. We always find someone to foster the dog. We provide whatever support is needed. The Foster has to do the rest. They are in a family home who knows the breed. They have access by phone and email to experienced rescuers and breeders and trainers to discuss every time baby stubs his toe. If something comes up, we move heaven and earth to re home the dog. We do home visits. Most of our stories are wonderful success stories.

    These are the sorts of things I would like to see HSUS doing, and if they can’t or won’t, some other organization has to come into being to do the job.

    Comment by Susan — July 19, 2009 @ 9:31 pm

  120. Organization #2 is obviously back to the Puppy Yenta idea, from the Finding a Good Breeder Shouldn’t Be This Hard post.

    Comment by Cait — July 19, 2009 @ 9:47 pm

  121. Interesting comments regarding paranoia and ‘black helicopters’. ;)
    Of course there is cautious humor in that and I think some of the posters are misinformed.

    FWIW, rescues, foster homes, disabled people (young and old) and several rare bloodlines are not worried about ‘black helicopters’.

    For them the choppers have already arrived. I am in this affected population.

    Gina, Christie, I know you are both advocates for no kill and do not support MSN. I know Nathan’s work is supported here and I don’t need to be reminded. I am also an advocate for the disabled, the poor, the rare breeds, the ones with no registries. While no one has singled out the disabled, poor, the rare breeds and others that are already affected, few mention them. Please be aware that slinging the term ‘black helicopters’ about—is hurtful for those of us for whom the ‘black helicopters’ have indeed arrived.

    Please don’t call our/my reality, a ‘paranoia’.

    For show competition requirements: how many disabled people do you know can take the bloodlines they’ve loved for decades in a whirl around the show ring in their wheelchairs and walkers to fulfill MSN requirements? Would you force them to hire professionals to be able to meet the needs of MSN? Is that equal treatment? What about disabled people training their own dogs for mobility support? Strength, size and soundness are important and mobility dog users often prefer the stable temperaments of intact dogs for at least long as it takes for the dog to gain mature comportment and size. Be aware of the length of time that a ‘program trained’ service dog (SD) waiting list can be. Some disabled people live with families that love pets and have multiple other dogs… a deal killer for some SD organizations and which also may put them over the local pet limit. And another angle, some of the rare bloodlines owned by both able-bodied and disabled do not have a ‘recognized’ registry (breeds imported from countries without FCI recognition) and do not qualify for any MSN exemptions in California without considerable cost in renewed veterinary exemptions, even if such exemptions are possible.

    For AKC show and performance breeders that need to place promising prospects into homes for individualized attention as they grow, so that the dogs can be screened for their prospects at maturity, the noose has already arrived. It is harder to place prospects into various regions that could, almost overnight become MSN. For them too, the choppers are here.

    AB 1122 (http://tr.im/t8tr) will hurt our rare breed and livestock guardian breed rescue railroad (RR). “This bill would provide, in addition and with specified exceptions, that it shall be a crime, punishable as specified, for any person to willfully sell, display or offer for sale or give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal on any street, highway,…” These dogs must often be transported from kill shelters or private homes, to public pickup points to be exchanged because specialized homes are often a must. Sometimes paperwork, a rescue release, ownership transport and money is exchanged while the dog is in transport—and certainly in some aspects the dog is being given away to the next relay point. Breeders who rehome a dog may run their own private RR and meet the buyer half way if the drive involves several hours. Thanks to short sightedness of the bill’s authors and perhaps those who believe this is just about ‘black helicopters’, RR may soon be made illegal. Do you still see that this HSUS endorsed bill implicitly supports no kill when it disallows community work including private individuals to transfer possession of dogs?

    Comment by SemaviLady — July 20, 2009 @ 3:52 am

  122. yes, as they say: even paranoids have enemies.

    Comment by EmilyS — July 20, 2009 @ 6:23 am

  123. SemaviLady, your points are well-taken, and you can probably extrapolate from my writings that I completely support the “railroads” of people who drive countless hours to get pets into loving homes, to trainers or to competitions. I am personally more than a little familiar with the coffee available in West Sacramento and Cordelia for all these reasons.

    I would bet you this piece of legislation is meant to make the giveaways/no questions asked sales illegal, and in theory to force people to spay/neuter instead — as well as to force Mexican puppy-smugglers out of business. Of course, this doesn’t work, since we know many of the people who are giving away kittens/puppies would spay/neuter their pets if they could get to it or afford it — and even more would spay-neuter if it were incentivized. As for Mexican puppy-smugglers, well, they’re criminals already for being in this country illegally. They don’t care, and won’t even if this is passed.

    The question is: Is this bill overarching in its intent or in its ignorance? I think it’s a result of inertia, carrying punitive, pointless laws of old-style “people are always bad” thinking forward even as the tide moves against this thinking towards the building of more effective no-kill community-wide strategies that actually, you know, work — as opposed to just allowing pet-rescuers to feel superior.

    I do hate nanny-state legislation, and in fact the flurry of well-meaning proposals with unintended consequence has been the topic of many phone calls here in Sacramento. Seems like a lot of this is the result of “Gee, that SOUNDS good” talks by folks who aren’t doing their homework. (It’s no surprise that the (now thankfully former) legislator behind last year’s mandatory spay-neuter bill (AB 1634) was known as “Lightbulb Levine” for pushing a failed proposal to force everyone to buy energy-efficient compact fluorescent lightbulbs, despite the fact that these are so problematic they have to be treated as hazardous waste when they burn out.)

    Nanny-state laws also speak to the preference many seem to have of punishing people, especially poor and/or dark ones, passing laws they can’t deal with instead of working to help them, assuming they are “bad” or “stupid” instead of asking them what would really help them care for their animals.

    The difference between you and me is I don’t see a diabolical secret plan in many of these proposals. I see misunderstanding in some cases and a unfortunate eagerness in other cases to be unconcerned about the collateral affects of a law to address something else. I also see the classic liberal patronizing attitude towards the poor that Christie wrote about so brilliantly here.

    To me, the popping up of “sounds good” proposals that are nanny-state nightmares doesn’t mean you decide the HSUS legislative juggernaut is something you mutter about darkly in echo chambers. It means you get in their face and tell them what they’re not seeing. You find the common ground and work out the differences. You demand a seat at the table, and you engage.

    Remember the railroad that brought Griffith from L.A. to Sacramento? The head of HSUS in California, no less, would be in violation of this law. And do you remember the commonly held assumption the dog’s rescuer had, that the presence of the dog’s testicles meant he needed a new owner, because his old owner was irresponsible because the dog wasn’t neutered?

    I think even though people were “Disappointed. Very. Very.” when I invited an HSUS lobbyist to blog here, everyone had to look at their biases and do some soul-searching. And it doesn’t stop there: Jennifer Fearing helped to socialize my purpose-bred litter. The fact is, she really DIDN’T know what good breeders do. Well guess what, she does now.

    Do you think the efforts of people like Jennifer to reach out and understand the benefits of no-kill communities, why mandatory spay-neuter kills more pets than it saves and the difference between my puppies and a puppy-millers’ has NOTHING to do with the HSUS supporting forced spay-neuter last year and staying neutral this year? Do you think the efforts of people like Laura to explain how much mandatory spay-neuter hurts the efforts to produce essential working dogs such as Search-and-Rescue or drug-detection dogs doesn’t have an impact?

    While I’m getting ripped for my “new BFF” from the HSUS, I can assure you she’s taking heat for her “new BFF” who’s not only a dog-show and hunt-test person (not to mention an omnivore who loves a good steak), but who’s also proud to be an ethical breeder as well as an animal rescuer.

    We are all about the engagement, about listening and trying to understand. And mostly, we are about not demonizing, and we always try to keep in mind that the common ground we share is a love of animals. We won’t agree many times but that common ground is a start.

    That doesn’t mean that everyone is open-minded. When hateballs like Judie Mancuso won’t consider anything but her own agenda (hence SB 250), you raise bloody hell, gear up the fax machine and the phone and get your ass to Sacramento.

    Remember, the best wars are usually — but not always — those avoided by negotiation, because once the armies engage, the carnage is inevitable.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 20, 2009 @ 7:31 am

  124. Frankly, Spadafori, I think you’re just being nasty.

    Comment by Tom — July 20, 2009 @ 9:51 am

  125. http://bluedogstate.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Ginger — July 20, 2009 @ 10:10 am

  126. Thank you both for your well-thought-out and truly significant contributions to the discussion. You forgot to mention that I’m fat and stupid, which does seem to be a fairly common claim made in the weekend’s higher than normal volume of hate mail.

    I do think it’s interesting that there apparently are more than a few people who consider the owning of pets to be a civil right that should not be infringed on in any way whatsoever — not even if you’re a puppy-miller — but who don’t see the value of freedom of speech or association.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 20, 2009 @ 10:25 am

  127. Hi Kim,
    Just saw your comment and wanted to let you know that the HSUS investigation focused on North America and did not include Canada. People in North America can check our website http://www.stoppuppymills.org for more information, thanks!

    Comment by Sarah@HSUS — July 20, 2009 @ 11:00 am

  128. Just saw your comment and wanted to let you know that the HSUS investigation focused on North America and did not include Canada

    ?????

    Canada is in North America, last I checked—or did your fingers betray and type “North America” when you meant “United States” ?

    Comment by Lis — July 20, 2009 @ 12:30 pm

  129. Hi Lis, it was specific to the United States.

    Comment by Sarah@HSUS — July 20, 2009 @ 1:09 pm

  130. What a great article. I think this is one of the most sensible articles I’ve read on the topic of puppy mills.

    I agree, typical legislation does not effectively address the issue of puppy mills. Laws often make it more difficult for responsible breeders and responsible pet owners while doing little to stop puppy mills and pet stores that import and sell them.

    I’ve recently started participating in dog shows, and I adamantly oppose puppy mills and the AKC registration of dogs from puppy mills. I’d happily pay higher show fees if it helped to put even one puppy mill out of business.

    Comment by MisterPeabody — July 21, 2009 @ 5:49 pm

  131. Gina recommends that we be sure who we support. Then she supports H$U$, which is working to eliminate not only what they’ve dubbed “puppy mills” (an Animal Rights-coined term used to describe ALL breeders), but to eliminate ALL purebred breeding as well. Christie understands that, though there indeed ARE some substandard breeders, eliminating the good ones along with them is not going to do the animals any favours.
    Gina, your AR slip is showing. And thank yous to Christie for seeing the facts.

    Comment by Carol — July 21, 2009 @ 6:30 pm

  132. Carol, go back to the echo chamber, and if you’d like to know why, read up thread. You’re failing to understand what I wrote, failing to understand what I do and do not support, and parroting more of those prefab talking points.

    I’m sure Christie appreciates you not having a clue as to what she has written, either, but I’ll leave those clarifications to her.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 21, 2009 @ 6:36 pm

  133. When did we get removed from the embrace of “North America??” lol… thanks for jumping on that, Lis - I haven’t been around much.

    Petland Canada belongs to Petland US - I must admit to being a bit confused as to why this connection was not made. Currently the assertion being made here in Canada is that the puppy mill connection is a US issue - which we of course know is untrue.

    Comment by Kim — July 23, 2009 @ 8:44 pm

  134. I certainly don’t want to eliminate the good breeders. As I think is clear in my comments in this thread, I want to develop a positive, proactive, and VERY STRONG message that the best place to obtain a family pet is from a family home — small, home-based breeders are the best source for companion dogs. Period.

    It’s true I am not a big proponent of social engineering through the legislative process, and I would like to see puppy mills/high volume breeders and all pet retailers driven out of business because people stop wanting to buy mass-produced dogs rather then by outlawing what they do, because these types of micro-managing laws both offend my belief in personal liberty and don’t work. But I believe that Gina and I see eye to eye on that as we do on most issues related to dog breeding.

    Newsflash: Protesting, demonstrating, and writing about what we believe in and think people should do, and why, is freedom in action, not taking someone’s rights away. My right to express myself, Gina’s to demonstrate, are far more bedrock principles of American values and, for that matter, LIBERTARIANISM ITSELF, than the right to breed dogs. So it completely bewilders me to see people urge us to be silent in the name of civil liberties and freedom.

    Do you people even hear yourselves?

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 25, 2009 @ 5:36 pm

  135. Really? You support an organisation such as the HSUS whose leader Wayne Pacelle, makes statements such as:
    “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding …One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
    — Wayne Pacelle,Animal People News, May 1993
    Please explain….how dog loving goes hand in hand with wanting them to go extinct? I am one of those people who get, what did you say? a nerve throbbing in their heads? when I hear one person spouting diametrically opposing opinions. Sorry.

    Comment by Mary — August 2, 2011 @ 12:37 am

  136. Is there an echo in here?

    A particularly stupid one?

    Does seem to be old thread week on the PC blog.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — August 2, 2011 @ 11:30 am

  137. And they’re both MY old posts. A puzzlement, iz.

    I sure need to get back to blogging when people have to go back two years to hate on me for opinions I don’t hold because their reading comprehension skilz are ultra-low, or their laziness quotient ultra-high.

    NOT ROB, however. He is Teh Smart and Teh Hard-Working. :) And not you, Houlie.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 2, 2011 @ 2:38 pm

  138. Gina Spadafori - please get back to blogging - I’ve sure missed reading what you have to say.

    Comment by mary francis — August 3, 2011 @ 11:10 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment


Syndication

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts