Petland: One down, many more to go

Do you like this story?

Petland: One down, many more to go

By Gina Spadafori

December 14, 2009

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. – Margaret Mead

The Petland store in Roseville, Calif., has shut down. Before Christmas, which is always the peak season for impulse puppy buying.

At right is the sign on the door.

Congratulations to Jennifer Fearing of the California office of the HSUS for keeping a small but dedicated band of volunteer picketers on the street in front of the retailer the first Saturday of every month. While no doubt the economy had more than a little to do with the closing, I doubt the constant presence of picketers helped.

These people made a difference, and I’m happy that one time I was one of them.

Let me say this: I don’t give a damn that those in the black helicopter crowd think the term “puppy-mill” was invented by animal-rights groups (it wasn’t) and that they don’t believe puppy-mills exist (they do) or that they don’t think it’s a problem if they do exist, if only the millers would clean up a little like those “model operations” you always hear about (family pets shouldn’t be raised in factory farms, even clean ones).

If you don’t think puppy mills are hideous, you either lack a heart or a brain, either way, your opinion rates for nothing with me. And I say that as a reputable, ethic breeder who doesn’t think people who care about preserving and protecting our heritage breeds need to side with puppy-milling scum in fighting forced spay-neuter and limit laws.

Reputable breeders — who are often involved in rescue as well — toss their credibility with other animal-lovers when they side with puppy-milling scum.

I called the HSUS out when they had it coming. This time, they have congratulations in order. Read more about their investigation of Petland.

Now, let me also say …

I have a hard time seeing any regulatory or legislative action that will protect reputable breeders while shutting down puppy-mills. That’s why I think education is everything. For only when people understand what they’re buying in a retail puppy outlet and stop supporting cruelty will the puppy mills go away.

That’s why I hope this small victory gets more people out there with more picket signs. So we can see more notices like the one above.

Filed under: animals: pets,puppy mills — Gina Spadafori @ 6:07 pm

Comments (44)

44 Comments »

This made my Christmas!

Comment by k9mythbuster — December 14, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
“For only when people understand what they’re buying in a retail puppy outlet and stop supporting cruelty will the puppy mills go away.”

A small disagreement here - since the retailers will simply go on-line (they are already there), so the puppy mills will continue until people stop buying from anyone other than a “good” breeder.

Now if we could all just agree on the definition of “good breeder” :)

Comment by K.B. — December 14, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
Agreed on the Web-based puppy-mill sales, absolutely.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 14, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
Great post about a Petland store closing - here here. This statement is problematic for me though: “I have a hard time seeing any regulatory or legislative action that will protect reputable breeders while shutting down puppy-mills.” I can’t imagine a non-pro-breeder making that statement, so maybe you are a reputable breeder or you know reputable breeders, and that is fine. What I don’t understand is how reputable breeders can be both against puppy mills and against legislation that would attempt to impose minimum regulations on them and thereby greatly reduce the suffering of the animals in them. Anti-cruelty laws only kick in after cruelty has been inflicted and suffering has occurred. We need laws on the front end that will prevent suffering in the first place. We tried to pass a puppy mill bill in Texas last spring but were defeated. The proposed bill would have only applied to operations w/11 or more intact animals, would have required an initial inspection to get licensed, and an annual inspection after that. But now because it didn’t pass, all the thousands of suffering animals in all the estimated hundreds of horrid puppy mills across the state have to endure untreated illnesses, be wounded, lame, starving, ridden w/external and internal parasites for at least two more years. Breeders “rights” are preserved, but what about the dogs in the mills???

Comment by ownedbydogs — December 14, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
What does an ‘intact dog limit’ law have to do with dogs having their basic needs ignored? Texas already has laws against the kinds of animal abuse you’re describing, I’m assuming.

Comment by Pai — December 14, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
Why 11 intact dogs? Why not 10? Or 12? Or 15? Or 8? Or 42?

Why should “good” breeders need to be inspected (cha-ching), while the “oops” neighbours get a free pass, because, you know, it’s just one litter and it’s a mistake, and it won’t happen again, as soon as they sell the pups and raise the money to get Fluffy spayed.

Someone with 10 intact dogs, who does no health testing, no competitions (conformation, sport, working, etc.), who keeps their dogs in kennels in the basement - all well and good, because they did not go past that magic number.

Someone who is active in their breed, knows the histories and pedigrees inside-out, does all health testing (and can actually discuss which tests are relevant and which aren’t) - but, oh noes, they have 11 dogs!!!

Do you see my point? Why such an arbitrary number? Who came up with the idea that 11 is okay, but dog in heaven, 12 means you are a dog-abusin’ shiteheel?

THIS is what “pro-breeder” people are against - someone else telling them X dogs is okay, but not X+1.

If you (or anyone) can come with additional (i.e. not already on the books) legislation that separates the good from the bad, please let us know. Because up until now, all I’ve seen is “magic number” legislation.

(I’ve also never heard who’s going to pay for the increased costs of such legislation, because, we all know, animal control is so well-funded, they have all this extra time to go count dogs and inspect kennels instead of dealing with real cruelty cases. But that’s another issue.)

Comment by K.B. — December 15, 2009 @ 4:17 am
I’m pretty sure I’m in this “black helicopter crowd” you mention. I don’t support puppy mills but I do believe in black helicopters. Maybe I’m “Crazy Lite”.

Comment by YesBiscuit — December 15, 2009 @ 6:47 am
YB — Unless you’ve changed recently, you’re not in this group I’m talking about. But Crazy Lite? I’m in.

KB — The thing about “intact” and “limits” is this:

The common wisdom in the animal-welfare community is that no “responsible, caring pet-owner” would not spay-neuter. And that all pets should be spayed or neutered, by force of law if necessary.

Funny thing is, though: While spay-neuter is definitely helpful for preventing unwanted and unplanned pregnancies, the procedures aren’t entirely benign for the pets. Peer-reviewed studies suggest higher rates of some cancers for pets who’ve been altered — enough to give truly “responsible” pet-owners pause.

Now most people having considered the pros and cons will go forward with spay-neuter — as I have, for most of my dogs and all of my cats. It was a case by case decision, made after considering the pros and cons for each animal and after discussions with my veterinarian.

But my male retriever is “intact” and that’s just ducky. He has no behavior problems and has never produced an unplanned litter, even though he has lived with an “intact” (now spayed) female. How do I accomplish this miracle? He is trained, fit and exercised, and as for not roaming, it’s called fencing and a leash.

Puppy mills are like pornography: You recognize them when you see them, but they’re very hard to precisely define without eliminating repuable, ethical breeders. Not “professionals” — I am professional writer. I have been responsible for two litters in my entire life of almost 52 years, one each from dogs sitting at my feet now hoping for breakfast, one from my male and one from my female, less than a dozen puppies, all in known homes I’ll be following for life, and all on “take back” contracts for life if there are any reasons for a dog to be re-homed. (By the way: My two dogs were not bred to each other, or to any dog even remotely convenient. Their respective mates were in Texas and Minnesota.)

If the definition of “professional” means you “make money,” well, someone owes me thousands of dollars just to break even on these two dogs, who along with the other two and the cats sleep on my bed every night. As a person who has run a breed rescue, I have been responsible for taking in, rehabbing and rehoming far more dogs than I ever will breed in my life, by the way.

For everything I have seen so far, when you come up with a definition of “puppy-mill” I can think of so many exceptions that would come under that definition but are not puppy mills.

That’s why after 20-odd years of writing about these issues, I really do believe puppy mills will not go away until their source of income dries up — when people who love animals learn what’s behind their purchase, and vote with their dollars for shelters, rescue groups and small, caring home-based breeders who know what it takes and put in the work to raise healthy, well-socialized puppies and place them appropriately in home well-suited to them.

I’m not absolutely saying I don’t see a law to stop puppy-milling scum without shutting down ethical, reputable breeders — but I haven’t seen one yet.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 15, 2009 @ 7:01 am
I’m trying to parse out what a “non-pro-breeder” is.

A little help?

Comment by H. Houlahan — December 15, 2009 @ 7:16 am
Commercial breeders started referring to themselves as “professional breeders” a number of years ago because it made it sound just one more step removed from “I throw boy dogs and girl dogs together to make puppies that I can sell for a hefty profit by cutting all sorts of corners”. After all, the word “professional” has this wonderful patina of respectability to it, and they’re banking on that. And I DO mean banking, because it’s STILL all about the $$$ for them.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 15, 2009 @ 7:52 am
“Anti-cruelty laws only kick in after cruelty has been inflicted and suffering has occurred. We need laws on the front end that will prevent suffering in the first place. “

This is true of everything in our system. Innocent until proven guilty, and all. Laws don’t prevent bad things from happening.

Comment by EmilyS — December 15, 2009 @ 8:14 am
In the context of puppies, “professional” along with “USDA licensed” is generally reason to run like hell — you’re dealing with a puppy-miller.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 15, 2009 @ 8:54 am
I really do believe puppy mills will not go away until their source of income dries up — when people who love animals learn what’s behind their purchase

That sums it up in a nutshell. The best (possibly ONLY) way to put bad breeders out of business is to dry up their market, and that means education of pet buyers.

I’ve spoken to people who would NEVER buy from a Pet Store, but they happily shelled out thousands of dollars for a puppy they bought from an on line broker who buys bulk lots of puppies from Eastern Europe.

I had a hell of a time convincing them that what they’d actually done was buy from a hi tech, on line Pet Store - the main difference being that the puppies suffered through a 24 hour + airflight, instead of a truck ride across the mid west.

If the HSUS and their like put half as much money into public education as they do into forced speutering laws, we’d stand a chance of really getting to the root of the problem.

Comment by FrogDogz — December 15, 2009 @ 9:26 am
1. The proposed Texas puppy mill bill wouldn’t have been an “intact dog limit” law. If you had 11 or more intact dogs all it meant was that a licensing requirement was triggered – that’s it. (you wouldn’t have had to euthanize your 12th intact dog, like one person thought.) Licensing just like what’s required for Texas barbers, tow truck drivers, elevator inspectors, etc. And yes, there are existing Texas animal abuse laws but they only apply AFTER abuse has occurred. We were trying to prevent abuse in the first place. (Pai, commenter #5)

2. It’s true there’s nothing magic about the number 11. But my impression from folks that opposed the bill and people commenting to this post – no number will ever be OK. And if no number will ever be OK, how are we going to begin to make a dent in the terrible suffering and death in the mills? If we say we are waiting for the public to get educated and dry up the demand, that will clearly take human lifetimes. Why is it OK with everyone to wait that long – to wait even another month or year? Isn’t there something you could live with now? If there is, please say what it is.

The Texas law would have paid for itself like this: inspectors would have been comprised of a team of vets, animal shelter workers, etc. that would have been certified by the state to conduct inspections. The state legislative budget board stated that the costs of running the program would have been offset by licensing fees. (KB, commenter #6)

3. Gina Spadafori – is it really OK with you to wait another 20-odd years or longer while either the perfect definition of “puppy mill” is derived and/or the public demand dries up? Because it sounds like you are a caring person and a reputable breeder, and I know you must realize animals are suffering right now.

I am just looking for answers here people. It’s easy enough criticize any attempt to correct this problem of puppy mills and do nothing. Meanwhile animals that can’t speak for themselves are living and dying in abject misery.

Comment by ownedbydogs — December 15, 2009 @ 10:03 am
But what conditions would be required by that licensing and inspection?

Most such proposed laws I’ve seen require non-porous, easily cleand/sterilized flooring, nothing in the kennels that isn’t easily sterilized, 24/7 lighting in the kennel areas.

Whereas the dogs of responsible breeders have soft beds, the opportunity play in the grass and the mud, and with some exceptions they live inside the house with the owners, or spend substantial time inside the house.

The breeder’s bedroom is the single most common place for puppies to be born.

And most anti-puppy-mill legislation, so-called, bans all of that, with its requirements for non-porous flooring, only easily sterilizable items in kennels, and 24/7 lighting in the kennel area. In short, most “anti-puppy-mill” legislation mandates clean puppy mill conditions, and prohibits the way responsible breeders actually raise their dogs.

Comment by Lis — December 15, 2009 @ 10:14 am
It’s easy enough criticize any attempt to correct this problem of puppy mills and do nothing.

Comment by ownedbydogs — December 15, 2009

We’re not.

We’re just not buying in to YOUR IDEA of what doing “something” is, since it will not eliminate puppy mills (they’ll just move, even out of country, as some already have) but WILL eliminate responsible, ethical breeders and countless heritage breeds of dogs, including those bred for traditional jobs that are still being done and newer ones that many people rely on.

If you cannot eliminate the demand for puppy-milling scum to do what they do, they’ll find a way to do it.

In the meantime, as Lis noted, you’ll hound reputable, ethical caring breeders into extinction along with hundreds of breeds of dogs. Which in in the minds of many is the desirable outcome, even if not stated aloud.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 15, 2009 @ 10:16 am
So who writes the licensing requirements? And who decides which animal husbandry practices are the “right” ones?

As an example, there are people out there who feel that you should NEVER breed a bitch on back-to-back heats. While there are others who feel that breeding on back-to-back heats is fine so long as you make sure you skip a heat before breeding again.

And then there are theriogenologists (a person with a specialty in the area of animal reproduction) who feel that you should NEVER skip a season. Either breed ‘em or spay ‘em!

Who’s right? Who’s wrong? And who gets to say? Do you really want this sort of thing formalized into licensing requirements (which is often the direction these things take).

And then there’s that inspection team of “vets, animal shelter workers, etc.” which you describe. A friend of mine - whose dogs were in perfectly good health - was once inspected by such a team when she had requested a kennel license from the city in which she lived. One of the members of the team inspecting her home was the local Animal Control Officer (ACO), and she had a pretty good idea things were not going to turn out well when she overheard from the next room as the ACO said to the City Vet “As far as I’m concerned, we’re not done until we’ve put ALL these breeders out of business!”

Hmmm . . . . she didn’t get her license, and was furthermore told she had to place her “excess” dogs. Is anyone surprised?

These things often sound so good on paper. But their execution generally falls far short, particularly when personal agendas come into play as is so often the case.

And this is why so many of us feel that we haven’t yet seen a piece of legislation written that will adequately and fairly deal with the problem of making sure dogs are being well cared for without going over the edge and hurting the ability of people who are doing things right to keep on doing what they do.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 15, 2009 @ 10:20 am
The specific licensing requirements would have been hammered out between stakeholder groups, with public comment input.

Gina – I’m glad you wrote what you did because I have seen that argument before and I so don’t understand it. How will anti-puppy mill legislation “hound (ha ha) reputable, ethical caring people into extinction along with hundreds of breeds of dogs”?

I say there are way too many dog lovers, and too many lovers of particular breeds (me included), for that to EVER happen.

And the dogs in the mills - what is the answer - no one appears to have any answers.

Comment by ownedbydogs — December 15, 2009 @ 10:43 am
Well, the answer certainly is NOT to demand via legislation that Responsible Breeders start being required to “do business” in precisely the same way the mills do!

Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 15, 2009 @ 10:45 am
OBD: I think you’re new here? We actually talk about these issues a great deal, including some “third way” options that can change the puppy mill paradigm in the way that taking action towards the building of no-kill communities is changing the shelter industry.

Stick around. I have a feeling you’re going to be a good part of the discussion as we build on common ground.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 15, 2009 @ 10:56 am
Oh, so the consensus is that “ownedbydogs” was using “pro” as an abbreviation for “professional” rather than as a prefix indicating “in favor of.”

I didn’t read it that way at first, so “non-pro-breeder” disentangled as “anti-breeder” or possibly “neutral on the question of breeder.”

I don’t know anyone who accepts the term “professional breeder” (in reference to dogs) other than the puppymillers who apply it to themselves, and their duped customers. Thus my confusion.

Just to add to the peanut gallery: puppymilling is a demand-side problem. Trying to staunch the supply with byzantine laws doesn’t work. The fact that it doesn’t work is sufficient reason not to do it. The fact that such laws invariably hurt ethical breeders is just additional information on top of the sufficient objection of “doesn’t work.”

The protests outside of Petland were an excellent way of combating the point-source pollution represented by puppy retailers. They should continue at every puppy retailer in the country, until they are GONE. And they should be disciplined, on-message, inclusive of all puppymill opponents, and targeted at the actual problem — not an excuse for a bunch of pre-enraged PeTA dupes to go out and scream at people that buying from a breeder means they just killed a dog in a shelter, and by the way you should all be vegan.

The more diffuse problem of online puppymills will require a more concerted, subtler, long-term educational effort that is concurrent with battling the puppy-in-the-window problem.

People need to learn to be skeptical about where their dogs are coming from — whether that’s a breeder with a website, the perennial “I’m not a breeder” Craigslist peddler, or the “shelter” that is importing puppies to meet demand.

Comment by H. Houlahan — December 15, 2009 @ 11:31 am
“pre-enraged”

Comment by H. Houlahan — December 15, 2009

I am so stealing this. So many applications!

Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 15, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Comment by H. Houlahan — December 15, 2009 @ 11:31 am

People need to learn to be skeptical about where their dogs are coming from

Unfortunately, many people tend not to want to put that much work into getting a puppy. It doesn’t strike them as the kind of a purchase that should take all that much effort. They can get puppies easily, and so they do. Which is also part of the problem.

The “secret handshake” problem in finding breeders who are doing it right as previously written about by Christie ( http://www.petconnection.com/b.....this-hard/ ) doesn’t help.

I believe in education being key. But I remain discouraged about how to deal with people who just run the other way (straight towards Petland or the quickest Craigslist ad) with their fingers stuffed firmly in their ears as they sing “La-la-la-la-la!” and plunk down their plastic or their checkbook to bring home their new “easy-terms” puppy.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 15, 2009 @ 11:50 am
And if no number will ever be OK, how are we going to begin to make a dent in the terrible suffering and death in the mills? If we say we are waiting for the public to get educated and dry up the demand, that will clearly take human lifetimes.

IIRC, Nathan Winograd said that pet store sales of puppies largely disappeared in San Francisco during the 1990’s when the SF SPCA was fully engaged in no-kill shelter policies. Pet store sales were squeezed out of the market by an increase in shelter & rescue adoptions. Policies and legislation that promote the shelter reform movement might have a similar effect in more jurisdictions.

I’m curious what has happened to pet store puppy sales in places like Washoe County NV that have experienced huge increases in shelter adoptions over the past several years.

Beyond that, enforcement of anti-cruelty laws needs to be stepped up. From what I have heard the worst cases of “puppymill” abuses were known to law enforcement authorities long before they finally cracked down. A reluctance by authorities to get involved will not change by piling on yet more new laws aimed at breeders. Communities need to insist that anti-cruelty laws be enforced, and enforced fairly.

Comment by LauraS — December 15, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
In the dismal area I live and in other areas I suspect - AC manager here gets on the local tv/newspaper (almost monthly) and tells of a puppy dumped in a garbage can in winter or summer (or some other horrible scenario)…then everyone hates the unknown despicable John Q. Public - keeps the heat off AC and the wheels of killing at the local AC keep on turning - if you make noise about it the heat is then on you - enforcement of anti-cruelty laws at least enforcemnt that I have seen is more about good PR for the AC - puppymill busts are good PR for the HSUS too.

Comment by mary frances — December 15, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
“pre-enraged”

I am so stealing this. So many applications!

You have already received stolen goods. I nicked it off of Margot Woods, who used it to refer to someone who joined a list she owned with the apparent intention of being offended by everything.

On the plus side, that particular online Elvis sighting led to a persistent list meme about chocolate-covered male lesbians who take their husbands’ last names, so that was good.

Comment by H. Houlahan — December 15, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Oh, so the consensus is that “ownedbydogs” was using “pro” as an abbreviation for “professional” rather than as a prefix indicating “in favor of.”

I didn’t read it that way at first, so “non-pro-breeder” disentangled as “anti-breeder” or possibly “neutral on the question of breeder.”

Comment by H. Houlahan — December 15, 2009 @ 11:31 am

I read it the same way - “pro” meaning “for”, not “professional”, thus possibly leading to some confusion…

” It’s true there’s nothing magic about the number 11. But my impression from folks that opposed the bill and people commenting to this post – no number will ever be OK. And if no number will ever be OK, how are we going to begin to make a dent in the terrible suffering and death in the mills? If we say we are waiting for the public to get educated and dry up the demand, that will clearly take human lifetimes. Why is it OK with everyone to wait that long – to wait even another month or year? Isn’t there something you could live with now? If there is, please say what it is.

Comment by ownedbydogs — December 15, 2009 @ 10:03 am

You seemed to have missed a LARGE point in my comment. Under the proposed law, someone with 10 dogs - NO MATTER HOW THEY TREAT THEM - is a-okay. Someone with 11+ dogs is subject to regulation, more expense, etc. Again, why are these laws reliant on a magic number?

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect here. When people think “puppymill”, they think of horrible conditions, dogs kept in cages their entire lives, etc. There are laws against this already - and in most places that I know of, there is an incredible lack of funding to get these cases investigated and the responsible people charged. So instead of creating new legislation (and sorry, but I don’t fall for the “paid for by licensing fees” thing), let’s start by enforcing what’s already there.

Then there are the “good” commercial breeders - inspected and licensed already, so again (as much as I’m against them), what is more legislation going to do? These places are “clean”, as another poster pointed put - they have to be, under the law.

What we should be fighting for is something that is posted here regularly - “family pets from family homes”, but how the hell do you legislate that? it’s not about the numbers, it will never be about the numbers, and any law that states *any* number won’t solve the problem.

And education doesn’t take a human lifetime. Look at how the perception of drunk driving has changed in just a few years, thanks mainly to education making it socially unacceptable any more.

Comment by K.B. — December 15, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
There is absolutely no evidence that prohibition (ferinstance….Prohibition) has ever worked to stop what it was prohibiting. As pointed out earlier, the only chance is to address the issue from the demand side.

So, OBD, what can you think of that comes at it from that direction. Passing laws isn’t the only, or often even the best, way to deal with a problem in society and one must always look out for The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Comment by Susan Fox — December 15, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Changed in a human lifetime…. when I was a little girl, pregnant women smoked and drank. People drove drunk and without seat belts. Motorcycle helmets? Bike helmets? Safety gear on roller skating kids? Please.

In my lifetime, it was illegal for people of two races to get married. Yes, they passed a law to force a few remaining states to abandon their anti-miscegenation laws. But no law could have made the people of this country elect the son of a black man and a white woman president. That took… something else.

Comment by Christie Keith — December 15, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
An example of creative public pressure that I remember reading about quite a few years ago was about a big bank in Chicago was doing some sh—-y thing around the holidays.

The protesters stood in front of the bank and handed out lumps of coal. The bank caved within hours.

“Ever insurgent let me be.”

Comment by Susan Fox — December 15, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
What we should be fighting for is something that is posted here regularly - “family pets from family homes”… education doesn’t take a human lifetime. Look at how the perception of drunk driving has changed in just a few years, thanks mainly to education making it socially unacceptable any more.

Just a thought, but if PetConnection sold nice bumper stickers that said that in its virtual store, and promoted them with a banner ad and reminders here from time to time, I suspect they would sell.

In the UK there is a bumper sticker that says something like “A dog is for life and not just for Christmas” or simply “A dog is for life”.
I like that.

Comment by LauraS — December 15, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
We can do that.

We have some little redesign work to take to our graphic designer for the site. I’m sure he won’t mind doing some bumper stickers, too.

I think we’ll run a contest … hold your thoughts. I’ll post later and open a thread.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 15, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
Prohibition

Just makes MORE incentive for lawbreakers. Scarcity=profit to be had.

I live in northern Northern California, I could give visitors a nice tour including where in our own neighborhood and town, lots of prohibited pot farms have been flourishing for decades, or just for months.

In California, like much of the US, most puppy mills and other horrid situations like true hoarders have been operating without already required licenses or zoning for years, whilst breaking all manner of existing statutes regarding care, sanitation and animal cruelty. Many have been complained on but there is little to no interest in pursuing charges by local authorities. Until the press seems interested.

But anti-cruelty enforcement needs to happen EVEN IF THERE ARE NO CAMERAS.

Slapping a feel-good, political bandaid on the issue by way of limit laws, MSN, “breeder licensing” only makes life a minefield for small scale home based breeders and gives local agencies an excuse to crack down on people who are actually voluntarily trying to comply.
It also give hard line haters a tool to harass breeders who do not deserve it.

The people who run what we would consider disreputable operations and crank out defective, unsocialized “product” are looking for quick profit, not legal sanction. Operating under the radar and selling via brokers and websites suits them fine.

Comment by JenniferJ — December 15, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Jess from Demonpuppy’s blog sums it up well imo:

“Caring for twenty Chihuahuas is an entirely different thing than caring for twenty Great Danes. Certainly there are people who have the time, money and skill to care for many dogs, and those that are unable to take care of even one. -New- laws will do nothing against people who would have broken the old ones.”

Arbitrary limits and financial and privacy-invading laws do nothing but punish people for the ‘crime’ of breeding dogs and owning a certain number that someone who likely knows NOTHING about animal husbandry has made up out of thin air.

Comment by Pai — December 15, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
And education doesn’t take a human lifetime. Look at how the perception of drunk driving has changed in just a few years, thanks mainly to education making it socially unacceptable any more.

Comment by K.B. — December 15, 2009 @ 2:24 pm

Education and MADD, yes — but also legislation.

The laws have toughened A LOT over the past 20 years. 20 years ago, my friend got a DUI and I don’t know that he even lost his license. Things are much, much stricter now.

I’ve said it many times before, but I think people need a very easy, convenient way to get their puppies if they are going to not buy from Petlands. Meaning, if they want a little lapdog breed — very rare even as adult dogs at the shelters where I live — they need to find breeders easily, and not have to drive four hours, and not have to sift through confusing language to figure out if the dog is really “quality” and if the breeder is really “good” or not.

In my ideal world there would be some sort of voluntary standard, five or so criteria, that all home-based breeders would divulge openly and CLEARLY. Such as health testing of the parents, breeder’s commitment to the puppy long-term, etc. So that consumers could do some measure of comparison shopping.

And, oh yeah, everyone would agree to never, ever step inside a pet store. Because once you see the individual animal it is very hard to walk away. I saw a rabbit for sale at a Petland last year, marked down to $8. He was nearing his expiration date, not so cute anymore at three months old or so. I made a huge fuss and left the store. It killed me to leave him there.

I should know to never step into those vile places. I can’t stand Petland.

Comment by Mary Mary — December 15, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
Comment by Mary Mary — December 15, 2009 @ 9:28 pm

The laws have toughened A LOT over the past 20 years. 20 years ago, my friend got a DUI and I don’t know that he even lost his license. Things are much, much stricter now

But what you’re describing is a tightening up of the EXISTING statutes, not the instigation of a whole class of NEW ones.

The analogy with respect to our discussion of how legislation might deal with good breeders v.s. bad is the idea of better enforcement of EXISTING statutes of cruelty laws already on the books.

They didn’t deal with drunk driving by telling you what kind of car you could drive. They dealt with drunk driving by getting tougher on drivers who are driving drunk.

Similarly, you don’t deal with bad breeders by changing the rules that good breeders must follow. You deal with bad breeders by taking effective action against them when they break the cruelty laws that are ALREADY on the books and not currently being adequately enforced.

Just as your example shows that toughening up on the ineffective enforcement of the DUI laws 20 years ago has helped change the perception of risk a person takes when driving drunk today, so too would toughening up on the effective enforcement of cruelty laws already on the books but too often overlooked help change the perception of the risk a person takes when deciding to raise animals in conditions that legally meet the definition of cruelty.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 16, 2009 @ 5:49 am
Good point, other Pat.

The days when an executive could slam back a dozen highballs of a Friday and weave his way halfway home, to be chauffeured the rest of the way by the indulgent cop who stopped him are, for the most part, behind us. Even GW Bush has sworn off the sauce, and he has a chauffeur.

It didn’t take new laws to do it, it took a social sea change that stopped winking at “boys will be boys” and “Mommy needs her little helper” when it came to piloting a two-ton weapon while intoxicated.

Speaking only for my experience, the puppymill and the hoarders whose mess I’ve helped mop up have all been in long-term, chronic, and egregious violation of existing animal cruelty laws.

Sometimes they didn’t get busted because no one reported the cruelty. This is like blaming the cops for not catching a serial rapist when a dozen victims have gone home and said nothing to anyone until #13 comes forth. New laws aren’t going to change the outcome, and better law enforcement isn’t, either. Only a cultural change that empowers victims 1-12 to report the crime will do that.

And sometimes it is more like poor Jaycee Dugard — the neighbors are calling the cops saying “He’s keeping little blond girls in a kennel in his back yard” and the cops and probation officer are like “La la la, we don’t see no kidnapped sex slaves here …”

I really think the laws against abducting and raping little girls and then running a breeding ranch for them are pretty firm and not too open to interpretation, and I think the culture is pretty unanimous on this point as well. So, an improvement in law enforcement in this jurisdiction is called for, perhaps?

You cannot improve enforcement of laws by making more of them. In fact, the converse is frequently true. A “cruelty” law such as the obscene Albuquerque “HART” ordinance — which classifies walking a dog on a too-long leash as a cruelty violation — encourages contempt for the law in general. (How much contempt? My puppy sales contract has a clause that returns the dog to me if the owner is convicted of animal cruelty. Pretty standard stuff. There is a specific exemption in that clause for the Albuquerque, NM law. So technically, if an owner of a pup I sold hung him up by the tail and beat him with a wire hanger inside the Albuquerque city limits, I’d have no recourse. I like the odds on this better than I like the odds that someone will be cited for using a nine-foot leash and I’ll be forced to take the dog back.)

Highly intrusive, prescriptive, and overly detailed laws are a great way to set people up for selective enforcement. Indeed, that’s often the stated goal of their proponents. The relevant categories are generally race, class, and whether when calls oneself a “rescue” or a breeder. In few areas is this agenda more obvious than in animal-related laws. This has been true since the birth of the humane movement in the 19th century.

Comment by H. Houlahan — December 16, 2009 @ 8:40 am
I still love the idea of a “Breeder’s pledge” set of voluntary standards that people could meet and recieve a ‘stamp of approval’ of some sort. Complicated? Yes. Un-doable? I don’t think so.

In my head, it’d have a list of health testing for each breed, and you’d send in copies of your certificates (or have your vet sign a form for tests which there isn’t a database like OFA), you’d have to have a ‘statement of purpose’ type thing, and a list of standard behavior (no breeding babies, taking back puppies, screening homes, whatever else people thought was good but as basic as possible to apply to ALL breeds)- additional stamps/endorsements/stars for going over and above the bare minimums.

Comment by Cait — December 16, 2009 @ 9:00 am
I really think the laws against abducting and raping little girls and then running a breeding ranch for them are pretty firm and not too open to interpretation, and I think the culture is pretty unanimous on this point as well. So, an improvement in law enforcement in this jurisdiction is called for, perhaps?

Comment by H. Houlahan — December 16, 2009

You have to stop doing this. I am TIRED of cleaning coffee off the screen.

—

Highly intrusive, prescriptive, and overly detailed laws are a great way to set people up for selective enforcement. Indeed, that’s often the stated goal of their proponents. The relevant categories are generally race, class, and whether when calls oneself a “rescue” or a breeder. In few areas is this agenda more obvious than in animal-related laws. This has been true since the birth of the humane movement in the 19th century.

Comment by H. Houlahan — December 16, 2009

However, this is so utterly true and right that I forgive you.

And it’s along the same lines of what Christie has written, that forced spay-neuter laws are aimed at punishing the poor.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 16, 2009 @ 9:07 am
38.I still love the idea of a “Breeder’s pledge” set of voluntary standards that people could meet and recieve a ‘stamp of approval’ of some sort. Complicated? Yes. Un-doable? I don’t think so.

Comment by Cait — December 16, 2009 @ 9:00 am

Cait, this is exactly what I mean … except for the “stamp of approval” part.

The problem is: WHO would bestow the stamp of approval?

It seems that as soon as a third party is involved, there is opportunity for some sort of greed-driven fraud or subterfuge. For example, all those puppy mill puppies at Petland with the AKC seal of approval proclaming their “quality.” So many people think that the only thing you need to consider when buying a puppy is whether or not he has papers.

I wonder how the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval works. I have never heard of any controversy surrounding that.

Comment by Mary Mary — December 16, 2009 @ 10:11 am
http://www.goodhousekeeping.co.....eping-seal

Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 16, 2009 @ 10:18 am
Marymary - In my head? It’s run by knowlegable people, who get changed out regularly, are not paid for their time, and enough of them that it’s not a power position or anything like that. People who apply for the position and then get voted up or down by existing members of the whole group (unlike AKC, where individual participants have no real voice, especially if they are not politically active in breed clubs, which can be real horror shows with the worst of the fancy represented.)

Comment by Cait — December 16, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Speaking of HSUS, I just read a piece in Newsmax Magazine’s December issue where Wayne Pacelle discusses the “tough year” HSUS has had raising money. He tells of HSUS’s struggles - how animal shelters suffering in the rough economy; how the Humane Society’s “national campaign” is supporting their work to help pets abandoned due to the foreclosure crisis. HSUS is coping by doing some of its most “creative fundraising”, he said, plugging an online HSUS project and trivia game (“Play Trivia to Help Save Shelter Dogs: Feed shelter kittens, puppies, dogs and cats” at Experience Project.com/savepups.) Sounded less creative than familiar to me. I remembered a People Magazine article and NBC-TV segment about Mimi Ausland, who at age twelve created Freekibble.com. to feed shelters pets in her Oregon hometown. The program, begun in 2008, has slowly but steadily expanded. I visited the site and read about their “Bow Wow Trivia Game to help shelters feed their dogs and cats.” Freekibble.com deals in direct food donations and has a diverse group of sponsors; HSUS’s “feeding program” generates CASH for HSUS.

I think Wayne Pacelle has responded to criticism, scandals and an early 2009 drop in donations/loss of some of their hoarded wealth in the economic downturn disgracefully. More than ever, HSUS will say and do whatever sells and undermines the competition’s ability to raise money. Co-opting No-Kill to polish their image and punish Winograd; shamelessly ripping off a 13 year old and struggling shelters; the Fay scheme; those TV ads. I’ll bet they end up with a record year in tax-free income. But congratulations for their small role in
the closure of an immoral operation that exploits animals for profit.

But congratulations on their small role in closing down immoral animal exploiters.

Comment by sara — December 16, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
Gina, you are so on target here. Anti-breeder laws cause unbelievable harm to dogs and do nothing to fix the puppy mill problem. It won’t be the big commercial breeders with clout that get clobbered—it will be the small breeders with well-cared for dogs who run afoul of some technicality. And you can forget about due process with these laws.

Illinois was working on a particularly nasty anti-breeder law (which, mercifully, did not pass thanks to strong opposition). The law included the requirement that breeders, defined as anyone who owns more than 3 breeding females and sells their offspring, would have to correct any “deficiencies” within 7 days or dispose of all intact animals at an animal control facility, a licensed Illinois shelter or have them euthanized by a veterinarian. Nice, eh? The dogs would have been executed or dumped into the hellholes of pounds and shelters just to get even with the breeders.

The law also had an anti-crate provision, requiring outdoor kennels. It could have easily led to scenarios like the following: A breeder has kept three healthy, very spoiled, intact female Yorkies indoors in heated and air-conditioned comfort all their lives. They sleep in her bed at night and have the run of the house when she’s home, which is most of the time. The dogs are crated when she’s gone because of a near-disaster involving chewed electrical wiring. The breeder refuses to banish the dogs to outdoor kennels, because they can’t tolerate cold or heat, and they hate being outside for any length of time without human company. So animal control kicks her door in, seizes the terrified and bewildered little dogs, marches the dogs off to the pound, and dumps them in separate cold concrete runs (which meet the regulations, of course). The dogs shiver miserably for days and suffer heartbreaking grief and anguish over the loss of their home and their canine companions. In two weeks, they each develop kennel cough and are immediately executed because they have a contagious disease. But at least they were “rescued” from that awful breeder!

Ignorant, well-meaning humaniacs do unbelievable harm to dogs. Black Beauty drew attention to the problem a long time ago, and things haven’t changed much:

“Only ignorance! only ignorance! how can you talk about only ignorance? Don’t you know that it is the worst thing in the world, next to wickedness? — and which does the most mischief heaven only knows. If people can say, ‘Oh! I did not know, I did not mean any harm,’ they think it is all right.”

There are, of course, some things you can easily fix with more laws. Here’s one (from an HSUS email today):

“An estimated 1,400 children and 10,000 animals are poisoned each year after ingesting ethylene glycol, a highly toxic substance used in antifreeze and coolant in automobiles. Ethylene glycol’s sweet smell and taste makes the deadly substance attractive to animals and children. The bill, [Illinois] H.B. 4722, would require manufacturers to add denatonium benzoate, an intensely bitter agent to antifreeze and coolant sold in the state that renders the product unpalatable. The additive would cost manufacturers an additional 2-3 cents per gallon.”

But fixing the puppy mill problem is a lot harder. It will require intelligent and dedicated enforcement of existing anti-cruelty laws and a great deal of education. Until you take away the market for puppy mill puppies, the problem will continue.

Comment by SusanS — December 17, 2009 @ 12:53 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Facebook	Twitter	Google Buzz	Digg
Technorati	StumbleUpon	Delicious	Email

pet connection

Do you like this story?