If puppy mills dogs are living in horrific conditions, conditions which are not anywhere nearly United States Department of Agriculture legal standards - how can these places operate?
Federal investigators have
uncovered grisly conditions at puppy mills where
dogs were infested with ticks, living with gaping wounds and in pools
of feces, according to a disturbing new report that placed the blame on
lax enforcement.
Duh -
We've known all this for years, decades maybe. From Oprah Winfrey show's report to dozens of other media reports, including stories I've written. YES! This is no secret - It's about time someone
might be paying attention. Some say a part of the answer is to beef up
legislation. Not necessarily - that could be a waste of time and money....though good PR for politicians. You see, in most places, they could enforce
what's on the books right now.
One big problem with new laws - According to this new report, investigators say the Agriculture Department In one case cited by the The review, conducted between 2006 and
some animal rights groups want to put all breeders out of business, placing legitimate and responsible breeders in the same basket as puppy mills and commercial operators. Not only is this unfair - it doesn't benefit anyone, consumers or dogs.
agency in charge of enforcing the Animal Welfare Act. those are state department of agriculture's, often ignores
repeat violations, waives penalties and doesn't adequately document
inhumane treatment of dogs. First time violators are often given a pass. Never mind, in many states, a lack of inspectors.
department's inspector general, 27 dogs died at an Oklahoma breeding
facility after inspectors had visited the facility several times and
cited it for violations.
2008, found more than half of those large kennels--known as puppy
mills--had already been cited for violations flouted the law again.
The
report recommends that the animal care unit at the USDA's Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service immediately confiscate animals that are
dying or seriously suffering, and better train its inspectors to
document, report and penalize wrongdoing.
Agriculture Secretary
Tom Vilsack said Tuesday the department takes the report seriously and
will move to immediately improve enforcement, penalties and inspector
training.
He noted the investigation was conducted before his time in
office and called it troubling.
Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., As long as people want pedigreed dogs - and they do - then I don't seen any benefit to anyone to make life tough for responsible breeders. These breeders, who generally operate from homes, are not the problem. Drive these breeders away (which is now happening) and pure bred dog prices go up, and some breeds could even disappear. Consumers don't want that to happen - but they're sometimes fooled by legislation which sounds good because it is cleverly called 'a puppy mill law.' You might be cheering - "Whooo-hoo" this will increase shelter adoptions - maybe...But in reality, in many places around America, there really isn't a dog over-population problem. That is a myth (depending on where you are), or fine - if you want a Pitbull-looking dog, or a larger sporting breed type dog. No one wants puppy mills. However, I'm increasingly convinced the animal rights lawyers who write these bills want to see all breeders go away. Let's just enforce the laws we already have. No one answer this question: "Why aren't we doing that?"
and David Vitter, R-La., said Tuesday that they are introducing
legislation to close the loophole in the law that allows breeders to
operate online. That might not be good - depending on what they mean by breeders. Limiting bad guys, of course...but this could be what I mean by handcuffing the good breeders. Both Senators said they will work with USDA to ensure
changes are made throughout the agency. But what kinds of changes?
Filed under: animal shelters, dogs, pets, veterinary health
Tags: dog breeders, inhumane, Oprah Winfrey, pedigreed dogs, pitbulls, puppy kept in poor conditions, puppy mills, pure bred dogs, Senator Dick Duribin, Senator Dvid Vitter, shelter adoptions, state departments of argriculture, Steve Dale archives, United States Department of Agriculture, USDA
Thank you for questioning the instinct to pile on further legislation. Clearly, enforcement of existing laws would do more good for more dogs than draconian restrictions and political grandstanding.
Problem is the convergence of political self-interest, which is better served by passing high-profile legislation than by buckling down to the business of fiscal responsibility and good governance, and the interests of those like the HSUS, who would be happy to outlaw plenty of humane practices along with the inhumane ones.
Better public education would help. If more people understood the importance of patronizing responsible breeders, as well as how to distinguish between Animal Rights and animal welfare, well, the world would be a better place in my opinion.
Steve:
You are absolutely correct in what you say!
As we all know, the real goal of these new federal dog breeding laws is not an improvement in the humane care of animals, but rather an improvement in the public image of certain elected officials who are proponents of such legislation, together with the improvement in the bank accounts of a few so-called humane organizations which we won't name publicly.
Additionally, common sense would dictate that in these times of budgetary austerity, resources be provided to prosecute the most egregious of the AWA violators who are already known to APHIS, instead of directing these scarce dollars and manpower against the better commercial breeders and hobby breeders. The US Inspector General report issued within the past month entitled "Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal Care Program Inspections of Problematic Dealers" revealed a number of deficiencies in the APHIS program which should be remedied, including ineffective enforcement against known violators; lack of proper documentation for these violations that were observed by the APHIS inspectors; and the improper lowering of penalties for the violators. To get the most bang for our dollar, and to make a real impact in the reduction of substandard breeder facilities (of which no one approves), these now-documented deficiencies in the current APHIS program itself should be focused on and resolved.
Steve,
You couldn't be more right. Enforce the bills already on the books! Keep up the good work, Steve!
Way to go Steve. Keep the pressure up. This PUPS law is flawed just as the PAWS law was.
Thanx Steve - some logic, for a change!
Did you know that there is really NO legal definition of a puppy mill? Do you think that many of the scenes that are taped are actually STAGED by H$U$ and their minions? Amazing - homes are trashed when they go in - didn't look like that before.
Over 85% of the dogs in the US are already castrated or hysterectomied. Many shelters are importing dogs from other areas AND from other countries, like Mexico, China, Russia, Iran, etc. Did you know that Caesar Milan imports a substantial number of dogs a year - yet he's pushing for mandatory castration and hysterectomy? The donated monies to H$U$ are for their lobbying against all of us and to enhance their retirement funds. They have an agenda - force all of us into veganism. Protein deprivation leads to decreased mental capacity - proven scientific fact.
Steve, have you read the bill proposed by Sen. Durbin? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3424:
I'm in shock. Anyone with a SINGLE intact female 4 months or older would be considered a potential high volume retail breeder. From your article, I thought the purpose of this legislation was to stop commercial breeders from selling puppies over the internet. That isn't the way it reads to me. I understand that they also have a requirement of selling more than 50 puppies in a year, but as we know once a law is passed amendments are usually proposed immediately to lower numbers such as that. If they all ready have the number of intact females down to ONE, how long before the number of puppies is also down to ONE. This one sounds really bad to me.
Thank you for being one of the few to publicly speak out about the complete lunacy of adding yet more bureaucracy to a problem that could be solved if the current AWA were only enforced.
Why these well-educated people think that adding more requirements will solve the problem is beyond me. If the current laws are not being properly enforced, then it makes no sense to add more requirements that will be equally unenforced (and in some cases, unenforceable). A better use of taxpayer funds might be to hire more inspectors and educate them properly.
Thank you, Steve.
Thanks for a great post, Steve. I can't see any logical reason to add more breeders (hobby breeders at that) to be inspected when APHIS needs to focus on enforcing the law regarding their current inspections.
Steve, you sure can spin words to influence the readers. I can clearly see that your clients are dog breeders, not dogs. Steve, just like there are many good breeders out there, there are good animal activists. You don't have to be an animal activist, but please do not hinder their work by expressing your political view based on limited knowledge. I do not mean disrespect. You are a very intelligent pet expert.
You are criticizing that the bill puts responsible breeders in the same basket with the puppy mills. But Whey you label the people who wrote this bill as "animal rights lawyers," you are putting truly responsible animal advocates in the same basket with the extreme animal activists.
I am surprised that many people above mentioned about things like political interests and definitions in the bill but nobody so far discussed the main pupose of the bill: regulating retail breeders.
The retail breeders are largely unregulated. That is why we do not see the reality that is even much worse than the glimpse of the horrible puppy mill situation we got to witness on the media. When an industry is unregulated, it is very difficult to investigate the industry.
The poor job done by APHIS is not because their limited resources. Rather it is their loose attitude toward the violators. If they take strict enforcement there will be much more financial resorces to enhance their practice.
Just by requiring licensing, APHIS will receive millions of dollars from the new breeders. Did you know that one pet breeder can pay up to $750 for licensing, depending on the scale of the operation? APHIS can certainly use the added funding to improve their inspection practice.
Most dogs do not benefit from pet breeding. Just a few lucky dogs end up in good homes and their humans benefit from pet breeding. Even then those cannot keep benefiting at the expense of the thousands of animals suffering in puppy mills. If you truly care about dogs, please keep the unlucky dogs in your thoughts.
Respectfully.
I am not a commercial breeder. I've been showing and breeding dogs for over 20 years. I have four adult dogs and two puppies. But under the misguided PUPS bill I could still be required to become USDA-licensed and inspected. If you have an "ownership interest" in a dog, even if it doesn't live with you, then any puppies it produces would be counted toward a 50-puppy total to make you a commercial breeder. That means that if I co-own dogs with friends in other parts of the country who show and breed them and they have puppies, I would be considered the owner of those puppies.
If I had to become USDA-licensed and inspected I wouldn't be able to pass USDA inspection to keep dogs in my home because the USDA requires areas where dogs are kept to meet their requirements -- for the floors and walls to be hosed down, for the surfaces to be impervious to moisture, and for the surfaces to be disinfected at high temperatures. None of us who keep and raise dogs in our homes can meet those standards. That is why PUPS would be so harmful to hobby dog breeders and people who breed dogs in their homes.
As for the Internet sale of dogs (and sale by newspaper and telephone and every other way of selling dogs), that is common for anyone who has dogs. Not just commercial dog breeders. It's silly to think that only commercial dog breeders sell over the Internet.
PUPS isn't really about commercial dog breeders. It's about people who breed dogs in their homes. And if you want to continue to be able to breed and raise dogs in your home you should oppose this bill.
Thank you, Eshever for your opinion. However I have ask you some questions for me to get your point clearly.
I do not understand your statement-"It's silly to think that only commercial dog breeders sell over the Internet." Who thinks that only commercial dog breeders sell over the internet? Do you think senator Dick Durbin thinks that? Or, are you saying that since hobby breeders sell over the internet as well, it is unfair to regulate the commercial breeders who sell over the internet and in the process inadvertently inconvenience the hobby breeders?
Also, I do not understand how you can say the PUPS is to target the people who breed dogs in their homes? To be affected by PUPS, a breeder must offer to sell more than 50 dogs in one year. How many people who breed dogs in their homes offer to sell more than 50 puppies in one year? However, I guess it could be possible, considering the situation where one owns multiple intact female dogs at different homes. So, again, are you arguing that it is unfair for this particular group of hobby breeders to be affected by this legislation?
Would you not agree that the majority of the commercial dog breeders will be regulated by the AWA, and only a fraction of the hobby breeders will be regulated by the AWA if the PUPS becomes a law?
What percentage of these hobby breeders do you honestly think would be considered "high volume retail breeders" as defined by the PUPS ACT? 5%? 10%?
Now, what percentage of commercial dog breeders do you think would be considered high volume breeders defined by PUPS ACT? I am sure over 90%. How many commercial dog breeders can sell less than 50 dogs in one year and stay in business?
Eshever, I am sure you have never carried a bomb when you get on a plane or intended to hurt the passengers. So do you think you should never have to go through the check points at airports? Do you think the IRS should never audit you since you pay taxes responsibly? Responsible citizens like you and I have to sacrifice in our daily living so that the laws can keep the few bad people in check.
PUPS ACT is there to regulate mostly the commercial breeders so that we can prevent inhumane breeding more. In order for a hobby breeder to avoid being affected by PUPS ACT, all she/he has to do is to cut down the operation size so that they sell less than 50 dogs in a year. Is that such a huge sacrifice to make in the name of trying to save the thousands of suffering animals?
Eshever, I am sure you are a dog breeder, and I can understand that you want your business to be regulated as little as possible. But the reality is this; there are thousands and thousands of dogs in this country suffering in the hands of some irresponsible commercial pet breeders.
I cannot force you to feel compassionate toward the unfortunate animals, but how about this--these commercial dog breeders will have tougher time staying in business if the PUPS BILL passes. Don't you see that they are your competitors? Don't you want people to come to you rather than going to a pet store or buying dogs on the internet?
If you are a breeder who breed dogs in your home, you should most definately support this bill. You will save countless number of dogs and you will see the increase in sales.
Respectfully
Hello Korean31,
Unfortunately, it seems that you have not understood my point at all.
eshever thanks for your reply. There are so many aspects in our arguments I should break them down and post each paragraph
separately, so that you don't have to copy/paste each of my counter argument.
So, here is the first one....
You said "HSUS seems to belive that only commercial dog breeders sell over the Internet and, by extension, Sen. Durbin. That seems to be the only explanation for this bill. Otherwise I would have to come to the conclusion that Sen. Durbin, HSUS and other people supporting this bill would like to see all sale of dogs online stopped. The stated purpose of this bill, according to many sources, was to close the so-called
Dear Korean31,
I will try to answer each of your comments, though I believe I've already done so.
The USDA has stated in the past that it is not a good use of their time and resources for them to inspect breeders who sell retail, i.e., directly to the public. Although people have used the term "loophole" with regard to selling over the Internet and at retail, there actually is no loophole. Retail sellers were specifically exempted from being inspected in 2003 when this matter was decided in the courts (Doris Day Animal League vs. USDA (Veneman, Anne). http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=1868
Does this issue have to be re-legislated with each new piece of technology? People have been selling dogs and other animals over the phone and through classified advertising for decades. Doesn't the buyer have some responsibility to make their own inquiries and use some common sense?
The word, "loophole" in this context, simply means there is a group who are exempted from being inspected by the USDA. When you say there actually is no loophole and go on to say that retail sellers were exempted, you are contradicting yourself.
I am familiar with the 2003 ruling. So, are you saying that just because the federal court once ruled against an issue, that issue should never be challenged again? Women's suffrage in the US took almost one hundred years during which the women's right to vote was granted and again taken away several times. Your arguing that just because one issue was once ruled it should not be addressed again is a poor argument.
Your aruging that buyers have some responsibility and must use common sense is correct. However, that has nothing to do with needing regulation. Why do we have DUI law? Why do we have anti drug law. Why do we have any law for that matter if relying on people's commen sense was enough?
Korean31, your arguments are specious. The vast majority of commercially-bred dogs in this country come from wholesale breeders who are already inspected by the USDA and who abide by AWA regulations. That is why it is not a good use of USDA inspector time and effort to visit every breeder who has 10 dogs in their home and sells over the Internet. There is already regulation for commercial breeders which needs to be better enforced. What we are talking about with PUPS is a bill that would try to stop the home and hobby breeding of dogs.
You said: "Did you read my explanation of how show breeders often co-own dogs that they show and breed? That could affect tens of thousands of people who keep and breed dogs. These are not commercial breeders. These are people who have a few litters, who health tests their dogs, and who carefully screen their buyers. However, because they co-own dogs with friends, if the dogs are bred elsewhere those puppies would be counted toward the 50-puppy total."
I have explained that after considering the co-ownership of dogs, I understand that some hobby dog breeders would run into that situation. I will say it again, there is no law that does not inadvertently affect the ones who do not need the law in the first place. For example, in order for us to keep the terrorists from attacking us, all patriots in this country have to make some inconvenient sacrifices.
I guess we are differing on the number of these hobby breeders who would be affected by this bill. Are you saying there are really tens of thousands of hobby breeders are out there who offer to sell more than 50 dogs in one year? Tens of thousands? Eshever, I would sincerely like to know if there is any data to back that up. Can you provide the source of that data?
Dear Korean31,
I can give you estimates. The AKC would have to provide data for the figures. It's estimated that about 20 percent of AKC registrations come from the "fancy" or people who are show and hobby breeders. That would be tens of thousands of breeders. A large percentage of those people do engage in co-ownership of dogs.
The purpose of co-ownership, ironically, is to protect dogs from being sold or bred without the consent of all owners. It is a protective measure.
I am not saying that any one person produces 50 puppies in a year in their home. But if you read the bill, it says that a person must be USDA-licensed if they have an ownership interest in dogs that produce 50 or more puppies in a year. If I co-own six bitches with friends around the country, which have been produced from various litters over the years, and those assorted friends decide to have litters in the same year, then I could easily find myself listed on some government list as the "owner" of 50 puppies who are being sold, even if I do not produce any puppies at all in my own home. That means I would have to become USDA-licensed and inspected.
This is a very important point. I hope you understand. It could affect tens of thousands of show and hobby breeders.
I don't know why you don't think I don't, but I do perfectly understand your explanation of someone's co-ownership of female dogs therefore potentially offering to sell more than 50 pups in one year. As I have explained, I do clearly understand that this PUPS ACT will affect some hobby breeders. And I also explained that there always are some sacrifices and cooperations need to be made when we trying to accomplish a greater goal.
My feeling is that we will never be able to prove the number "tens of thousands." I still find it hard to believe that tens of thousands of people co-own dogs enough that they sell more than 50 puppies in one year. Even if so, I don't know why it is the end of the world if they have to make adjustment so that they do not sell more than 50 dogs.
You clearly do NOT understand since you have asked me to explain half a dozen times and you still don't seem to comprehend.
PUPS will affect much more than "some" hobby breeders. I have explained that around 20 percent of the AKC's registrations come from people who routinely co-own dogs. That is well over 100,000 dogs annually. Multiply that on a yearly basis and you can see that this will affect a great number of people who produce those dogs. I don't know why you have trouble understanding those numbers, unless you simply don't want to accept them.
It's only "the end of the world" if it's happening to you. If you are someone who has spent 20-30 years breeding dogs and you have your entire life wrapped up in loving and caring for those dogs, then maybe you could understand why you might object to politicians and activists telling you to give it up for a poorly written and ill-conceived bill like PUPS that will not even do what it was designed to do.
You said "Commercial breeders are ALREADY regulated by AWA. What is being suggested by PUPS would add tens of thousands MORE hobby and home breeders to the number of people that would have to be inspected by APHIS. Many people are like me, show breeders, who could not possibly pass USDA inspection because we keep and raise dogs in our homes. That would be impossible under PUPS. Perhaps that is the intention? To stop the home breeding of dogs? Is this bill designed to stop the breeding of purebred dogs by good breeders?"
My argument: ONLY WHOLESALE COMMERCIAL BREEDERS ARE REGULATED BY THE AWA. RETAIL COMMERCIAL BREEDERS ARE NOT REGULATED BY THE AWA Again, to avoid being regulated by the USDA, you have to make sure you do not offer to sell more than 50 puppies from the dogs you own and co-own. I hope that I have explained enough why a responsible hobby breeder like yourselfs sometimes has to go through that hassle.
No, you have not explained anything to convince me why I should have to become USDA-licensed and inspected if I don't even breed a litter in my home in a year. Or to explain why I should give up breeding my dogs in order to allow a very badly-written, ill-conceived bill like PUPS to pass.
PUPS will harm show and hobby breeders and these are exactly the people who produce dogs of the highest quality in this country. They are the breeders who fund canine health research in the millions of dollars. They keep many rare breeds alive. Any bill that is harmful to these breeders is not a good bill, no matter what it's stated intent is.
Besides that, PUPS would not even do what it claims. It would not significantly improve conditions for dogs in substandard breeding operations. If you would really like those conditions to improve then you should be encouraging the enforcement of existing laws and perhaps asking for more APHIS inspectors.
We all responsible citizens have to cooperate and make inconvenient sacrifices for greater good. You and I have to go through inspection points at airports eventhough we never carry a bomb or intend to hurt anyone. We have to allow the IRS to audit our tax records eventhough we always pay taxes responsibly.
The degree of willingness for the cooperation differs from people to people. In this context, your cooperation means you having to make sure you do not offer to sell more than 50 dogs, whether the female dogs live in your house or live in the opposite end of the country. I understand that you feel it is unfair for you to have to do that. But I do feel that is a small price to pay in order to help fight inhumane breeding.
So, you are arguing that PUPS would not even do what it claims. That is purely your opinion. Nearly all legislations have oppositions.
It is a poor argument to say that we do not need a new law because the existing law is not adquately enforced. When new drugs hit the street, should we not pass a new law to illegalize it, just because the US's anti drug laws are poorly enforced for the existing drugs?
This bill will not do anything to substantially help the dogs described in the OIG report. Steps are already being taken by APHIS to correct problems in the department. I fail to see how PUPS addresses problems described in the report. It is nothing but a piling on, using the report as an excuse to make a punitive law against home and hobby breeders.
No, we do not all have to make "sacrifices" for the greater good. What sacrifice are you making? I, and other breeders like myself, produce high quality dogs that are well-bred, well-socialized, from health-tested, champion parents. I perform a service for people who are looking for a good dog for their family, whether they intend to show the dog or not. People like myself contribute millions of dollars toward canine health research. We keep rare breeds alive. Just what kind of sacrifice are you asking us to make if you pass laws that stop us from breeding? All of the things we do for dogs will END. How does that help the public? How does it help dogs?
PUPS is a short-sighted bill that does not do what it claims. Instead it would have many negative consequences to show and hobby breeders and to the general public.
you said "There is no possible way to
First of all, please don't tell me what I think. Secondly, I haven't stated any assumptions about who wrote the bill, although it is a well-known fact that Sen. Durbin is strongly supported by HSUS. He receives a very high rating from them on their Scorecard and he has sponsored legislation for them in the past. HSUS is not an organization that is friendly to dog breeders. Not only have they supported federal bills similar to PUPS in the past but they frequently support mandatory spay/neuter laws and breed specific legislation at the local and state level.
I thought I had explained, several times, why I could be defined as a high volume retail breeder under this bill. Yes, even though I have just four adult dogs, three of them are co-owned with other people. Yes, I do co-own dogs that I've bred in the past with people that I sold them to. If those people all decided to have litters in the same year they could conceivably produce 50 puppies and I would be labeled a high volume retail breeder, even if I did not produce a litter on my own premises. I would not receive a dime from the sale of their puppies.
Is that likely to happen in my case? No. Could it happen in the case of tens of thousands of other breeders like myself? Absolutely yes.
Eshever, you did make and continue to make an assumption about the people behind this bill. You said "The people promoting this bill believe that ALL dog breeding is
Korean31, I will ask you again, please do not tell me what I think, or, in this case, what I feel. I have not said anything about hatred, generalized or otherwise. If you question my statement that the people *promoting* this bill (I did not say the people who wrote it), then I invite you to visit the PETA web site, or the web site for the ASPCA, where the bill is being promoted.
korean31, I am beginning to believe you are most definitely a "plant," "mole" or "troll". The bill itself is so poorly worded that it can be construed in many ways - as far as to say that the dogs must be exercised but it cannot be a "forced" activity. That means exercising your dog by taking it for a walk would NOT be considered appropriate exercise under this bill.
It also defines a breeding female dog as over 4 months of age. 4 months of age is far too young for a dog to be considered of breeding age. Many show breeders will often hang onto a couple of promising puppies to let them "grow out". These dogs should not be considered as breeding females. And 4 months of age is far too young to spay.
Co-ownerships exist far more than you apparently realize. Perhaps you should attend a show and pick up a catalog and see how many dogs are actually co-owned.
There is no justification for a numbers-based regulation. A husband-wife team or a family team may be able to care for a number of dogs. And there are people who probably cannot handle even a single dog.
Education should be the key. Certainly when we buy a car, we do research. When we buy a house, we research the neighborhood, taxes, schools. Why should pet owners NOT be expected to research the breed and the breeder. Making new laws will not stop irresponsible owners from dumping their pets.
You said "I feel compassion where it is deserved but I do not feel compassion toward dogs who are raised by loving home breeders. No, of course I do not feel that commercial breeders are my competitors! Why should I? Commercial breeders sell dogs to a pet market. Anyone who wants a dog from me is looking for a well-bred, heatlh-tested dog from champion parents. I believe that everyone in this country should have the right to own a dog and they have the right to get that dog wherever they choose. I would like to see more people in this country breeding dogs, not fewer."
I apologize I called your hobby as a business. I would buy dogs from you than from a pet store anyday. However, I do not agree with you promoting no regulation on pet breeding industry. I believe there are responsible breeders but there are inhumane breeders. These irresponsible breeders must be regulated. Again, regulating the inhumane breeders require some cooperation from the responsible breeders, just like most laws.
Again, wholesale breeders are already regulated. And the USDA has stated in the past that it is not a good use of their time and resources to try to regulate and inspect home breeders and those who sell at retail.
It's always very easy for a third person to say that someone else must cooperate, isn't it? You would probably feel differently if you were the person being told that you would have to be inspected and you would not be able to keep and raise dogs in your home.
Eshever, there are two type of commercial breeders: wholesale commerical breeders and retail commercial breeders. It is important to distinguish them. The wholesale commercial breeders are regulated by the USDA. Retail commercial breeders are NOT currently regulated by the USDA.
Yes, it is easier for me to speak about the cooperation if it doesn't involve me. That is true. When the government tries to tax the rich more, I am not as upset because I am not rich. If I was rich, I woulbe be very upset. But that does not take away the need for the sacrifice and cooperation.
Korean31, I don't know why you are telling me that people who sell retail are not regulated. I know that. That's what we have been discussing. The point is that not everyone who sells a dog retail, i.e., directly to the public, is a commercial breeder ("high volume retail breeder"), or should be licensed and inspected.
When you are the one being asked to make a "sacrifice" then you may have something meaningful to say to me. Certainly the USDA needs to work on enforcing current laws before anyone considers expanding the number of breeders that they inspect.
Can you direct me to a single picture (one single picture) that was used again and again in the OIG report?
I can refer you to numerous places in the report that cite the same violations. The dog with the tick infestation and the dog who had to be euthanized because of the leg injury are used repeatedly. The report used the worst of the worst violators as a starting point and then went from there. It was intended to find things wrong with APHIS.
I know many of you on this blog are pissed off at me because I disagre with you guys. However, the inhumane breeders will never disagree with you. Is that why you never speak against them? It's okay you dont' support PUPS ACT, but please use your profession to contribute toward stopping the inhumane breeders who give you good breeders such bad names.
sincerely
The PUPS act would regulate home and hobby breeders! It would mean that many people who breed dogs as a hobby and for show purposes would have to be USDA-licensed and inspected. These are not people who breed dogs "inhumanely." No one here wants to see dogs treated inhumanely but this bill seriously misses the mark.
If you want to see dogs treated humanely then you should do all that you can to encourage the enforcement of existing laws instead of trying to expand the law to cover more breeders. Make sure that the breeders who are currently regulated are being properly inspected by APHIS. Make sure the agency has enough funding and enough inspectors. That makes much more sense than adding thousands of new breeders to be inspected.
Stop telling people they have to make "sacrifices" when they are some of the very people who do the most for dogs in this country.
Eshever, I see that our healthy argument is turning in wrong direction. No matter how wrong you think I am, I am sure you realize that there are dogs suffering under inhumane breeders. Please consider helping to save them.
sincerely,
Korean31, I have said repeatedly that if you want to ensure that dogs are being cared for properly then the best thing to do is to advocate for better enforcement of existing laws rather than trying to pass a new law which would hurt show and hobby breeders.
Obviously korean31 is not going to listen to change his/her mind, and the more I read the more I am convinced that he/she is not at all knowledgeable about dog breeding, quality dog breeders, or show/hobby breeders vs commercial breeders vs "puppy mills".
As with all of these poorly worded bills that are advertised as "for the animals", PUPS is loaded with negative consequences for dogs and people who love them. I used to call them "unintended" consequences, and have used that word in legislative hearings in my state, but I have decided to not use that word any longer. Because, these consequences are NOT unintended at all. Piling on all these new laws rather than improving enforcement of existing laws doesn't work to improve the lives of dogs at all, and when the public discovers that there are still too many people raising dogs in filth and squalor (which is a given), the original authors and groups who write and/or promote these poorly written, unenforceable laws can simply say they weren't "tough enough" and lower the numbers again, or add more and more restrictions until the true goal of these groups is met. That goal - which is clearly stated by groups such as HSUS and PETA, and other Animal Rights movement lobbying groups - is to make the ownership of pets so difficult and burdensome that that only a very few people will be able to do so. Breeders of healthy, well-bred (best is home-bred) dogs will be close to extinction by then, and all that will be left will be genetically inferior animals, mostly from the worst places, because these "breeders" are underground, hidden, not concerned with any laws at all. If they get caught, dump the animals or kill them, pay the fines, and move to another place and start all over again.
Just two things to think about in regards to all the new laws written, starting in townships and going all the way up to the federal level with PUPS - 1) a large percentage of hobby/show breeders who raise dogs in homes, do the health checks, support canine health research, etc., have been doing this for a very long time, or at least are being mentored by someone with years of experience - are well over the age of 40, and carrying a wealth of knowledge. Get a little older, and facing all these terrible laws, and it just won't be worth it any more to continue. Bingo, the AR folks have won another round. And 2), thousands of recent laws written with those low numbers like PUPS (50 puppies, 4 MONTHS old considered breeding age, any "interest") hit responsible breeders who RESCUE even harder. You can't have it both ways. These laws are ALWAYS written for maximum impact on ALL responsible breeding with no possible way to determine quality based on numbers. Example: In my community we have a 3 dog limit. Doesn't matter, Chihuahuas or great Danes, just three, period. I have three purebred dogs who are working search and recovery dogs, and two of them are co-ownerships with three people each. eshever's arguments about how detrimental that number 50 is make a lot of sense, and he/she hasn't even mentioned RESCUE!!! If my dog's breeder wants to have a litter from one or both of my dogs, just imagine how complicated the arrangements could be, especially if she pulls a dog or two out of rescue.
Just for korean31, who doesn't know much about dog breeding, the enforcement of PUPS in this case has now become TOTALLY impossible. Female dogs have one or two "seasons" a year, and it is a challenge to time something like the sale of pups from co-owners around the country when you think about all these layers - when are the bitches ready?; when will the pups be ready to leave?; how many puppies are predicted, vs actual births?; what sex, what faults result that affect the choice of new homes; Is there a waiting list, or will advertising be needed; will there be enough buyers, and which year will count towards that magic number?; which of the resulting puppies will also be co-owned? Now take into consideration the local laws surrounding each bitch with puppies, such as LIMITS, MSN? NOW, let's throw in this possibility - a puppy sold on a "return, no questions asked" contract combined with an unexpected rescue situation where there could be multiple dogs for a breeder volunteer to find new homes for, and you just explain how any of these laws are going to be enforceable without hundreds and hundreds of paid staff to facilitate? Explain how this DOESN'T "punish responsible breeders"? Explain how this will be paid for? And if responsible breeders are not actually the targets of these laws (which I contend they are), please explain how enforcing PUPS with this terrible, nebulous, fuzzy language will reduce substandard breeding (since it is unenforcable)?!
Think, people. Thank you, Steve, for sharing your valuable insights - we have a huge task educating the public, and your blog reaches a lot of people.
PUPS ACT, if becomes a law, will save literally thousands of dogs suffering in puppy mills. As you have read in the USDA IG audit, the majority of the repeat violators go on without being penalized. In one high volume pet breeding facility there are easily hundreds of dogs. For example, in 2008, in the state of Missouri over 20,000 puppies originated in high volume breeders' facilities. That is just one state. You can do the numbers to guess how many dogs might live in substandard pet breeding facilites. When I say thousands of dogs in puppy mills, it is ridiculously conservative figure.
This PUPS ACT might affect your operation if, ONLY IF, you offer to sell more than 50 pups.
Korean31, I have read the OIG report. I also know that it is very slanted and that it uses the same pictures and cases again and again. It selectively used the worst of the worst offenders for the report. Are you aware that in the 1997 USDA Animal Control Annual Report it states that 97 percent of commercial breeders are substantially compliant with the Animal Welfare Act? 97 percent. That is an outstanding score. But you don't hear anyone discussing that number.
The numbers you are supplying here are misleading. First of all, Missouri is the leading state for commercial breeders. So it's not exactly fair to use them as your example and then say, "that is just one state." That is the leading state. Many dogs from high volume breeders come from facilities where there are *less than* 100 breeding dogs, which is not quite what you are suggesting. You are also suggesting, either accidentally or intentionally, that all commercial breeders are "substandard." Again, this is far from the truth.
I have explained, again and again, how people who do not breed and produce 50 puppies themselves can and will be affected by the PUPS act. Very sorry if you don't like the facts, but that's what's in the bill. It has nothing to do with commercial breeders. This bill will adversely affect show and hobby breeders.
Can you tell me more about the 1997 USDA Annual report? Who collected the report? Was this a result of an audit of the collected reports? Or was this simply a collection of all inspection reports in that year? If this is not an audit of the reports, it has absolutely no value to truly reflect how responsible the USDA breeders are.
The whole point of the audit is to validate the inspectors' reports. Do you want to readily believe the APHIS inspectors reports when they are proven again and again to be ineffective toward preventing inhumane breeding?
Can you also direct me to a single picture (one single picture) that was used again and again in the OIG report?
Eshever, Thanks for pointing out that Missouri is one of leading commercial breeding state. Yes, it is not accurate to equate Missouri situation to every other state. So, how many dogs do you think in your opinion are in puppy mills?
Not all commercial breeding facilities are substandard breeding facilites.
Not all cancers are malignent. nevertheless malignant cancers take people's lives. We need to fight to cure malignant cancers.
Not all commercial breeders are inhumane breeders. We need to fight to stop inhumane breeders.
Now you're just starting to sound crazy.
Good grief. How many times did the report refer to the same violations
Have you ever read an annual report? Do you know what an annual report is? Annual reports typically contain audited material from within a department. They are public documents and you can find this one on the USDA web site. Search for Animal Care Annual Report of Activities Fiscal Year 2007.