Plan now to skip the puppy-mill holiday sales push
By Gina Spadafori
September 25, 2009
Pet Connection BFF Dr. Patty Khuly has had it with puppy-milling scum and their retail sales outlets. And she wants you to know what veterinarians see when people bring in those sick dogs:
[A]bhorrent conditions are common. Animals are more often sick and congenitally diseased than not. Puppy mill origins are the norm. And still there’s a seemingly bottomless font of willing buyers prepared to pay up for the right to buy what very well might be a purebred disaster sourced from a disreputable establishment where abusive farming practices are the norm.
Every retail pet shop I’ve ever visited (and I’ve made it a point to visit a great many) has always disputed all the above points. In the face of sniffles and severe congenital ailments alike, pet shops have patently denied the defects, pointed to certificates, cited “championship bloodlines” and —— most egregiously —— often ignored my requests that they water their “widgets.”
And hey … these are the “cleaned-up” pups for public display! You wanna see real hell? Visit the puppy-mills themselves, where the parents of the “merchandise” spend their entire lives in misery. Oh, sorry …you can’t.
You’re not “rescuing” when you buy a puppy-mill dog from a pet store or Internet site: You’re perpetuating a cycle of mind-numbing cruelty. And don’t think you’ll do better by buying a “hybrid” — a Puggle, Maltipoo, whatever — from these outfits, because you won’t.
Don’t buy so much as a flea comb from these places. Just walk on by.
And if you do step in, be sure you understand what they’re telling you, and what it means. Dr. Patty explains it all. And then walk on out.
Adopt a pet or buy from a reputable breeder. Here are some tips.
Had someone call me today about a puppy from a known Sac webmill. Sent them all kinds of info and offered referrals but never heard back.
My guess, they had already paid a deposit and just wanted to be told it’s “OK”.
It’s not, sorry.
I hope it’s a healthy happy puppy. I hope it’s parents have some quality of life. I pray that they will have some sort of quality “retirement” when they can’t make product any longer.
But the reality of puppies-for-profit argues against those hopes.
I have no issue with a new pet being added at the holidays. People can responsibly and thoughtfully add a new pet to their families anytime of year. Ditto for poor thoughtless choices.
It’s rarely a good plan to rush the acquisition of any pet. Right now is a fine time to begin the research into where and how to find a new pet to share your home and lives and holidays with.
Comment by JenniferJ — September 25, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
I have for a great length of time looked toward purchasing a Cavalier King Charles puppy and find this blog tweaked some thoughts. This is probably because I also recently read an Australian post which spoke toward the difficulty pet owners have when trying to acquire a pup from a reputable breeder . . . not just minor road blocks but finding a total non-availability of well bred pups from fully health tested stock. The Cavalier breeder she was exchanging views with admitted “there are not enough registered dogs being bred in most breeds to satisfy public demand. I have had 4 emails this week for a cav pup, despite not having bred anything for quite some time. Some buyers do bulk mail outs to all breeders.
Maybe it is different in the “minority” breeds, but in the 2 breeds I have there are more buyers than pups.”
I bookmarked a very long post (#156) by this breeder which reflected on the last 20 years and why this has happened. I bookmarked it because his observations as a breeder match my own as a pet owner.
http://www.dolforums.com.au/in.....;start=150
I have no solutions, just observations and questions. I know numerous pet buyers who gave up and purchased from less than the best breeders.
So here is a question that I can’t seem to find a resolution to. IF there are more pup buyers than pups being produced by responsible breeders (and I have observed this in more than just the Cavalier breed), where are the buyers supposed to go? Nathan Winograd makes a good case that they cannot all go to rescue as the numbers aren’t there either.
Have we (the royal) set this situation up - an open market for millers - albeit accidentally and with the best of intentions?
And I know this is not a thought many will agree on, but having memories reaching much farther back than many who post on these blogs, I personally liked it better when the odd farmer and occasional neighbor was not too intimidated to breed a litter or two, or when a responsible breeder was also not too intimidated to place an intact dog with a pet owner they trusted for possible use in the future . . . it beats the miller mass producing mini-poodles and poo mixes in wire cages in Quonset huts.
Comment by Kary — September 26, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
My opinion is that the pet buyers need to be patient- and the breeders need to consider mentoring more folks who want to be responsible breeders.
Comment by Cait — September 27, 2009 @ 6:28 am
This week a vet tech I’ve known forever asked about a source for a GOOD German shepherd pup.
I gave her one name of a breeder on the other side of the state who breeds dogs suitable for her lifestyle and might also know others who would have such puppies.
She said she’d get in touch with her come spring.
NOOOO — you need to get in touch NOW, if not much sooner, for a spring puppy.
Patience, yes — and some forethought. This animal professional knows she wants a pup, she knows when she wants a pup, and she knows what kind — but she seemed intent on waiting a few months to contact the supplier of a very rare commodity.
Comment by H. Houlahan — September 27, 2009 @ 6:52 am
I happen to agree that more should be patient, however patience will not work for all of them as long as the market outstrips the supply . . . by millions such as we have now. Even if it was realistic to expect the average puppy buyer to buy better, the queues would just get longer if they all did that.
I do believe if more breeders were more open to the idea of mentoring that would be a start.
We are missing the step that goes from complaining that buyers “should be” more patient and actually implementing ideas to make that happen. As this involves human nature, in fact, this is the hardest area to tackle.
I just see the present situation continuing unless a: we find a way to stop the millers (any workable ideas?) and b: we change the ability of people to be patient and c: there is a recognition of the fact that there is just not enough responsibly bred pets for buyers to find
For many breeders the thought of breeding for “pets” is a dirty concept. I think that is very sad and is part of the problem.
The idea of puppyfarm mamas living forever in a cage upsets me more than a lot. As an older person most of my friends are now favoring small companion dogs and I just get frustrated as I watch more and more “50 something” acquaintances bringing home commercially bred pups - even when many know better, but I truly don’t see anything changing because there are no solutions being put in place - just a lot of complaining.
Comment by Kary — September 27, 2009 @ 8:31 am
Comment by Kary — September 27, 2009 @ 8:31 am
For many breeders the thought of breeding for “pets” is a dirty concept. I think that is very sad and is part of the problem.
Here is what troubles me whenever this question comes up:
How much of the quality (and I’m including health and temperament here, not just looks) that a good breeder strives to produce should s/he compromise in order to produce these animals for the “pet” market? And why is the pet buyer not then short-changed by possibly receiving an animal with health or temperament problems because these qualities were overlooked or minimized in the quest to produce animals that are “just pets”?
It’s hard enough for breeders who are trying to get everything right to produce a well-rounded animal when they put their best efforts into it. What might they produce when the effort is only their “second best”?
I hear what you’re saying, Kary. But this quandary really bothers me.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 27, 2009 @ 9:13 am
How much of the quality (and I’m including health and temperament here, not just looks) that a good breeder strives to produce should s/he compromise in order to produce these animals for the “pet” market? And why is the pet buyer not then short-changed by possibly receiving an animal with health or temperament problems because these qualities were overlooked or minimized in the quest to produce animals that are “just pets”?
They should not compromise any of the health tests and temperament screening in order to produce for the “pet” market.
I do think they need to learn not to be afraid to say that what they are breeding are, in fact, great pets. Healthy dogs that have the looks, the temperament, and the activity level that you were looking for in deciding you wanted that breed. That their puppies are actually worth the screening and the wait.
I think we—and they, the responsible breeders—need to learn to distinguish better. It’s not a binary situation: either you have every single one of the characteristics of an optimally responsible breeder, or you are a BYB differing from a puppy mill only in the number of dogs you are heartlessly exploiting.
We need to recognize that, not only for the average pet owner, but for the dogs themselves, health testing and temperament screening are more important markers of being a responsible breeder, than conformation, or, yes, field trials, herding trials, agility, etc.
Reaching out to the almost-there BYBs who are small-scale, love their dogs, and are doing many things right but not everything, and educating them to step up and do the critical bit that’s missing for responsible pet breeding—health screening, temperament screening, spay/neuter clauses and return clauses—would be a lot more helpful to both the dogs and the prospective pet owners looking for a healthy, happy puppy than wholesale condemnation is.
Comment by Lis — September 27, 2009 @ 9:26 am
but not every pet store sells puppy mill puppies. round my way, all the pet stores that I know of take in puppies from people who’ve had accidental litters (not always so accidental) but have one or two left that they couldn’t find homes for so the pet store buys them and sells them for a premium.
Still amazes me how much people will pay for a mutt dog just because it’s small.
How about helping people tell the difference between a healthy puppy and a pet mill quality puppy? or how are people to know the difference? Can we know the difference?
Comment by Annette — September 29, 2009 @ 5:26 am
Annette, here’s the thing about selling animals out of a retail outlet v.s. out of one’s home:
When selling out of one’s home, the seller (breeder) can apply a requirement that animals will only be sold to approved buyers, and the criteria can be pretty much whatever the seller (breeder) wants them to be. Granted, a lot of us think that some breeders go a bit overboard on this score, but the fact is that in this scenario, the breeder retains the option to keep the animal’s best interests uppermost in the transaction.
It’s different in a retail environment. If I come in to buy, and I have the money, they pretty much have to sell the animal to me. Furthermore, a “bottom-line” driven business owner is hardly going to turn away sales, even if it were legal to do so. The best interest of the animal takes a distant back seat to the profit motive in this scenario.
This is a major reason why it’s pretty hard to defend the idea of selling animals at retail, no matter what “justification” is presented for doing so.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 29, 2009 @ 5:52 am
check out the codes of ethics on the breed clubs webpages - many specificalyl say they WON’T sell thorugh pet stores.
you can’t tell the difference between good breeder and bad breeder by looking at the pup - you really gotta visit that breeder’s place.
puppy mills are loaded with CKCS :(
Comment by BestDog Mom — September 29, 2009 @ 11:47 am
The bottom line is a primary consideration at most pet stores…I’ll give you that. But bottom line is also a primary consideration for many pet breeders as well. They need to recoup some of their costs as well….otherwise why go through the bother of breeding and all the various costs and risks that go with that?
I just dislike seeing all pet stores painted with the same brush. What’s wrong with wanting to meet the bottom line of creating sales? A person would like to see all their dogs go to wonderful loving forever homes….but shelters are filled with purebred dogs that the breeder wouldn’t have thought would end up in the shelter. So it’s not all pet store issues.
the issue is more of enforcing laws against various animal mills and figuring out what is a reasonable standard. I’ve been to kennels of show dogs where the dogs spend their day in a kennel…to me that’s not reasonable living for a dog even if it is spacious. to me a dog should be part of the household.
I raise rabbits (and breed them) …some people detest that I raise them in wire bottomed cages and think all rabbits should be free range running through my house and yard.
There has to be reasonable middle ground for all involved. how small is too small for a dog to live in? how fast of a breed back schedule is considered proper? These are concerns for all sorts of people. Just because Dogs are considered by most to be companion animals…to some they are considered livestock (just as my rabbits I consider as livestock). Just like cattle, pigs, goats, sheep and such like.
Just like keeping pigs in a messy stinkhole is inappropriate…keeping a dog in a cage just big enough to turn around in 24/7 is inappropriate or a rabbit in a cage 18 x 12 inches is unsuitable as well. BUT for the livestock owner keeping those animals in pet quality housing isn’t appropriate either. not all of us can have free roaming pigs, 3-12 dogs in the house, or bunnies in 3 x 6 foot cages.
Different mindsets. BUT finding out what is reasonable care is what is important. There should be middle ground that recognizes both mindsets and keeps the animals involved safe, cared for, and healthy.
Comment by Annette — September 30, 2009 @ 5:43 am
Comment by Annette — September 30, 2009 @ 5:43 am
The bottom line is a primary consideration at most pet stores…I’ll give you that. But bottom line is also a primary consideration for many pet breeders as well. They need to recoup some of their costs as well….otherwise why go through the bother of breeding and all the various costs and risks that go with that?
There are plenty of reasons for breeding that have NOTHING to do with “recouping costs”. A breeder who has “the bottom line” as a primary driving force is not a breeder who is putting the best interests of the animals first.
I just dislike seeing all pet stores painted with the same brush.
I dislike seeing all breeders painted with the same brush. But the fact is that the “brush” I painted wirh - the need to turn a profit and preserve the bottom line - DOES apply to all retail businesses. A small hobby breeder is not a retail business, and therefore that same brush “need not apply”.
What’s wrong with wanting to meet the bottom line of creating sales?
Nothing, as long as you’re selling toasters.
A person would like to see all their dogs go to wonderful loving forever homes….
Which is why a person who has the best interests of the animal at heart accepts the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to find the right home for each of those animals and do the placement. Along with offering as “takeback clause” in case the placement does not work out for any reason.
shelters are filled with purebred dogs that the breeder wouldn’t have thought would end up in the shelter. So it’s not all pet store issues.
If any of those dogs came from a breeder who cared enough to offer the takeback clause I mentioned above, they won’t stay in that shelter for long if the breeder becomes aware of them. Because a caring breeder will go and retrieve any animal of theirs that might end up in a shelter (although this doesn’t happen very often when a breeder is careful about that initial placement) and will then again carefully select a new home - again with that all-important “takeback clause”.
the issue is more of enforcing laws against various animal mills and figuring out what is a reasonable standard.
There is no such thing as a “reasonable standard” when it comes to raising animals intended to be companions as if they were farm animals.
to me a dog should be part of the household.
Exactly. From birth till death. Which most definitely does NOT include time spent on display in a pet shop cage.
I raise rabbits (and breed them) …some people detest that I raise them in wire bottomed cages and think all rabbits should be free range running through my house and yard.
And some of those people post here. I expect you’ll be hearing from them. I don’t know as much about rabbits as I do about dogs, but I can well imagine the discomfort of bare feet supporting the body’s weight on a wire surface. And as I understand it, rabbits do well with freedom in the house, but have no more of a “requirement” to be let loose outdoors than do cats or dogs.
There has to be reasonable middle ground for all involved. how small is too small for a dog to live in?
Well, according to the USDA who are charged with the regulation of commercial breeding facilities, here is one example:
http://www.kimtownsend.com/sto.....thutch.htm
(This picture is part of a series of slides on this website. Click on the picture and you’ll be taken to a page listing actual minimum USDA-approved minimum cage size dimensions for various breeds.)
how fast of a breed back schedule is considered proper?
No single answer. A decision best left to be made between a knowledgeable vet and a caring breeder with the animal’s best interests uppermost in the decision.
These are concerns for all sorts of people. Just because Dogs are considered by most to be companion animals…to some they are considered livestock (just as my rabbits I consider as livestock). Just like cattle, pigs, goats, sheep and such like.
That’s an entirely different discussion. THIS discussion started around the idea that those dogs *who are intended to be companion animals* have no place being sold in a retail establishment such as a pet shop.
Different mindsets.
No, NOT “different mindsets”. Entirely different SUBJECTS.
BUT finding out what is reasonable care is what is important. There should be middle ground that recognizes both mindsets and keeps the animals involved safe, cared for, and healthy.
You don’t try to find “middle ground” between apples and oranges. Although I won’t be surprised to see Gina weigh in here with a post on the importance of humanely and sustainably-raised agricultural animals - a subject she advocates for on a regular basis.
In the meantime, there is no “middle ground” scenario that *ever* puts dogs intended as lifelong household companions into a pet shop cage for display and sale to the first person with the plastic or the cash to plunk down to buy them.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 30, 2009 @ 7:19 am
The bottom line is a primary consideration at most pet stores…I’ll give you that. But bottom line is also a primary consideration for many pet breeders as well. They need to recoup some of their costs as well….otherwise why go through the bother of breeding and all the various costs and risks that go with that?
I think you are unfamiliar with what is considered a responsible breeder of either dogs or cats.
They are not businesses, and they are not breeding to recoup their costs. They are breeding to improve the breed, to get a better show dog or cat, a better field trial dog, a better obedience competitor. They breed a small number of litters per year and not necessarily every year. They have homes—carefully screened homes—lined up for the puppies or kittens before they breed.
They don’t make a profit. In a very good year, they might break even—if you don’t count the costs of showing or competing at whatever it is that they do.
I just dislike seeing all pet stores painted with the same brush. What’s wrong with wanting to meet the bottom line of creating sales? A person would like to see all their dogs go to wonderful loving forever homes….but shelters are filled with purebred dogs that the breeder wouldn’t have thought would end up in the shelter. So it’s not all pet store issues.
Responsible breeders don’t leave that to chance. They screen households before they place a puppy or kitten with them. They follow up, maintaining contact and often requiring pictures to be sent, on a regular basis or on demand. They have takeback clauses in their contracts, requiring that the animal be returned to them if the buyer at any time in the life of the animal cannot keep it. If an animal of theirs does go to a shelter, and the breeder finds out about it, they go and get it back.
Those purebreds sitting in shelters are almost 100% from pet stores, BYBs, and direct-sale puppy mills. The kind of people you think we’re being mean about.
I raise rabbits (and breed them) …some people detest that I raise them in wire bottomed cages and think all rabbits should be free range running through my house and yard.
It’s a mystery to me how anyone could raise any animal that they cared about in a wire-bottomed cage. If you actually liked rabbits, the idea of them living in the house and having some freedom of the yard wouldn’t strike you as so ridiculous
There has to be reasonable middle ground for all involved. how small is too small for a dog to live in?
The USDA has set those standards; you can go look them up. And I will never under any circumstances support a standard for the raising of household companions which regards them as no different than battery hens. Those standards aren’t even appropriate for hens.
how fast of a breed back schedule is considered proper? These are concerns for all sorts of people. Just because Dogs are considered by most to be companion animals…to some they are considered livestock (just as my rabbits I consider as livestock). Just like cattle, pigs, goats, sheep and such like.
Healthy, well-adjusted household companions cannot be raised by people who regard them as livestock and who think that factory farming of them is therefore appropriate.
Just like keeping pigs in a messy stinkhole is inappropriate…keeping a dog in a cage just big enough to turn around in 24/7 is inappropriate or a rabbit in a cage 18 x 12 inches is unsuitable as well. BUT for the livestock owner keeping those animals in pet quality housing isn’t appropriate either. not all of us can have free roaming pigs, 3-12 dogs in the house, or bunnies in 3 x 6 foot cages.
Again, it is not appropriate for dogs, cats, OR rabbits who are intended to be household companions, to be factory farmed or treated as livestock. Those conditions do not produce healthy, well-adjusted animals prepared for their lives as human household companions.
Healthy, well-adjusted family pets come from family homes where they are raised in the conditions they will be expected to function in in their permanent homes. Different conditions may be appropriate for dogs who will be working dogs, herding or hunting or whatever, but being factory farmed as livestock won’t work for them, either.
And there is no middle ground between regarding dogs, or cats, or rabbits, as “livestock” and regarding them as family pets. I want mine to come from people who regard their animals as part of the family, not as livestock.
Comment by Lis — September 30, 2009 @ 9:42 am
So there must be huge worlds of differences in breeders then….and what one breeder might think as responsible, another might not.
I find those differences interesting.
As I’ve known more than one breeder of purebred dogs and more than owner of purebred dogs and they all think of themselves as responsible, but also all act in different ways. Some being very careful about finding homes with an active I’ll take the dog back policy, and others with a screening process but happy enough to just send puppy off.
That is why broad paintbrush sweeping is something I dislike. So many ways of doing the same thing and still be responsible about it.
You would say that no pet store should ever sell any animal because it’s not good for the animal to
1. be on display
2. be sold to the first come first served customer.
3. be sold to a person with no accountability placed upon them
I agree that some people simply shouldn’t sold an animal and there are times when I wish there was something in place to hold people accountable for the animals that they purchase. Even a basic care/needs sheet given out with every animal sold.
That sometimes people/businesses have to say…to you no, I won’t sell an animal. And should have the right to say, no I won’t sell you a pet. And perhaps having it in writing somewhere that you can refuse a sale (so that one doesn’t get sued).
Animals being on display…I just can’t see the problem with it. Handled, touched, toys to play with, fed, watered….puppies get that in pet stores, as do the mirade of other small animals.
Do I agree with puppy mills and dogs being caged in too small cages with too quick of a breed back policy? NO. And such businesses should be shut down. By enacting good laws that can be enforced without punishing the little guy. Because face it, some good dog breeders out there are being shut down because of active (poorly written) anti-puppy mill laws or too high taxes (or one sort or the other). if that happens, the price of dogs will only go up until it becomes an elistism purchase and that’s not right.
Comment by Annette — October 1, 2009 @ 4:33 am
So there must be huge worlds of differences in breeders then….and what one breeder might think as responsible, another might not.
Exactly. Some breeders are “in business,” think of themselves as business people, and think they’re being responsible if they take good basic care of their animals including vet care, are honest about what breed or mix they’re selling the customer, and honor a three-day or five-day return clause if the customer takes the puppy to the vet and it is found to be ill. They may be nice people, and honest business people, but the dogs are basically widgets to them.
Other breeders understand “responsible” as meaning “responsible to and for the animals.” Their breeding dogs are not production units but loved pets, and the puppies are, emotionally, their grandbabies, being sent off to their permanent homes when they’re old enough. Good initial screening is not just a good idea; it’s both essential, and not enough. They follow up. They make sure the dog really is safe and well in his or her new home—and guarantee a safe home to come back to if that home doesn’t work out, for any reason, at any time.
I find those differences interesting.
Yes, aren’t they?
As I’ve known more than one breeder of purebred dogs and more than owner of purebred dogs and they all think of themselves as responsible,
Human beings rarely think of themselves as irresponsible, or dishonest, for that matter.
but also all act in different ways. Some being very careful about finding homes with an active I’ll take the dog back policy, and others with a screening process but happy enough to just send puppy off.
The ones who just send the puppy off, with no follow-up and no take-back clause, are saying that they do not care if the puppy winds up living in a cramped cage, bred every heat, having the puppies taken from her at six weeks or even younger (and six weeks is at least two weeks too early), and then killed or dumped when her “production” falls below a level the miller considers adequate.
I’m sure most of them don’t realize that that’s what they’re saying, that for the most part they just assume the initial screening is adequate and those nice people would never do that to a dog. But some of them will, and if you have no follow-up, you don’t know.
That is why broad paintbrush sweeping is something I dislike. So many ways of doing the same thing and still be responsible about it.
Um. No. We’re not required to accept people’s self-assessments of their own behavior without further critical thinking. If you don’t take responsibility for the lives you bring into this world, lives meant to be lived as lifelong human companions, you are not being responsible, and we’re not required to regard you as responsible, or to refrain from calling you out on your lack of responsibility.
You would say that no pet store should ever sell any animal because it’s not good for the animal to
1. be on display
2. be sold to the first come first served customer.
3. be sold to a person with no accountability placed upon them
Exactly.
And if the wrongness of (2) and (3) don’t leap out at you, we may have a really basic communication problem.
I agree that some people simply shouldn’t sold an animal
Yes, and a retail sales setting does not allow any screening at all beyond ability to pay, or any means of refusing to sell to a customer who does have the ability to pay.
and there are times when I wish there was something in place to hold people accountable for the animals that they purchase. Even a basic care/needs sheet given out with every animal sold.
A basic care sheet will help the people who want to do the right thing by their new purchase; it provides no accountability at all for those who do not, nor any safety net for animals who wind up in the hands of the irresponsible, or who are bought by good, responsible people who subsequently die or have something go horribly wrong in their lives.
That sometimes people/businesses have to say…to you no, I won’t sell an animal. And should have the right to say, no I won’t sell you a pet. And perhaps having it in writing somewhere that you can refuse a sale (so that one doesn’t get sued).
Retail settings don’t and can’t do this. Private breeders can, and some do.
And the puppies and kittens in pet stores all came from breeders who didn’t care enough to do that, who were happy to take the money and forget about the lives the brought into this world. And that brings us back to the parents of those puppies and kittens—who are the property of people who regard them as production units.
The objection to pet stores isn’t all about the puppies and kittens who get sold there.
Animals being on display…I just can’t see the problem with it. Handled, touched, toys to play with, fed, watered….puppies get that in pet stores, as do the mirade of other small animals.
They get fed and watered in some stores; in others, they can sit in their own filth with little or no food and water for many hours.
And I’ve rarely seen toys in the display cages, even in the “clean” pet store that my former vet told me took excellent care of its animals.
(Although Petsmart and Petco do seem to provide toys pretty consistently to the birds, hamsters, and ferrets. So perhaps I should say, “in the kinds of pet stores that think dogs and cats are acceptable merchandise, I rarely see toys in the display cages.”)
Do I agree with puppy mills and dogs being caged in too small cages with too quick of a breed back policy? NO. And such businesses should be shut down. By enacting good laws that can be enforced without punishing the little guy.
These are the sources of the puppies and kittens in pet stores, along with BYBs who may take better care of their own dogs but still don’t care what happens to the puppies as long as they get paid.
Because face it, some good dog breeders out there are being shut down because of active (poorly written) anti-puppy mill laws or too high taxes (or one sort or the other). if that happens, the price of dogs will only go up until it becomes an elistism purchase and that’s not right.
Annette, had you not just stumbled upon this blog recently, you’d know that people here are well aware of, and actively oppose, poorly-written legislation that actually targets good breeders while giving a pass to puppy millers.
Comment by Lis — October 1, 2009 @ 5:24 am
As always, Lis wrote a very coherent, comprehensive post. I would like to expand on one point, however. Annette wrote:
Animals being on display…I just can’t see the problem with it.
Here’s the thing - and again, my discussion here is specific to puppies: Those puppies are being placed on display while they’re at their cutest stage of “puppy-ness”. Dontcha’ know they sell better that way, after all!
But here’s the thing. Puppies go through some critical formative stages when the experiences they have and the environment they are kept in can create patterns of behavior and temperament that will be with them for the remainder of their lives. And some of those formative periods fall smack dab in the middle of when they’re at the height of thei cute “puppy-ness”.
Both you and I have acknowledged that dogs (those intended as companions) should be “part of the household”. To do that successfully, most dogs need to exhibit a stable, well-adjusted temperament, and for most dogs,much of that temperament is a result of what happened during the formative periods.
Responsible breeders understand this and actively seek to provide their growing puppies with a variety of socialization and sensory stimulation experiences - but done in a carefully-controlled way so that the puppy never becomes overwhelmed and traumatized in the process.
That kind of control is simply not possible in a retail setting. Not only are there far too many different people handling the animals for any kind of meaningful control to take place, but far too often the personnel working in pet shops are part-time workers, frequently kids, and generally with little to no real “dog knowledge”.
And then there are the stories of puppies left unsupervised with families in the store’s “visiting room” where puppies end up getting hurt or dropped or worse. It happens.
And most pet stores - especially those in malls - have little by way of climate control. During summer months, the air is frequently over air-conditioned during the day. During winter months, the heating is turned way down (and the lights off) from closing time (which could be as early as 6pm) to store opening the next day (which could be as late as 10am). That’s up to 14 hours when these young and impressionable puppies are left alone in the dark and the cold. The ones who fall ill from this are simply removed from public display. What happens to them next is one of those questions that no one really knows the answer to.
“Animals being on display…I just can’t see the problem with it.” Well, hopefully I’ve helped open your eyes a little.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 1, 2009 @ 6:30 am
The ones who fall ill from this are simply removed from public display. What happens to them next is one of those questions that no one really knows the answer to.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 1, 2009
:::cough cough::: What? Did you say dead puppy? :::cough cough:::
No, I didn’t think so …
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 1, 2009 @ 8:47 am