Oprah on Puppymills

Speaking only for myself, I know volunteers at the shelter who own purebred dogs they've bought from well-researched, reputable breeders.  I know rescue people who have done the same.  Every single breeder I contacted in my search for an airedale also rescued.  That's standing behind what you produce and trying to make sure what you personally produce as well as the dogs in your breed are well protected and cared for.

I'll tell you what all those people ARE against.  Poorly, carelessly, irresponsibly bred dogs by people who use it as a way to make money and care nothing about the future of the breed or the offspring they produce.  They're also  against keeping intact dogs unless they are breeding prospects who are very carefully guarded to ensure no accidental mating occurs.  That's why the shelter spays/neuters before adoption, the rescues do as well and the breeders require it before they release papers and maintain co-ownership of any breeding prospects.

NONE of those things are done by BYBs, puppy mills or puppy stores.  The blame for the number of dogs in shelters and rescue lies in a number of places.  I know of no shelters that are tracking their stats by breed.  It's hard enough just to stay on top of the sheer volume coming in and going out, so any pontification on where the blame lies or where the dogs are coming from is pure conjecture. 

miranadobe

AgileGSD

rescue loves to blame breeders

Gotta call that out as fairly inaccurate for a host of reasons.  But maybe that's self-evident to the rest of us reading it.  I'd say it's more accurate that rescue looks at failures from the owners first, then backyard breeders (who fall under "owner", too), then puppy millers, etc.  Most of us who rescue respect responsible breeders.

Come on where have you been.  You haven't seen the quotes from Judie Mancuso where there is no such thing as a hobby breeder They stated the dogs in shelters because of evil greedy breeders.  The head of PB animal control stated the problem in her shelter is because of breeders. We have seen on this board many times from "rescuers" that the entire problem is because of breeders, and there are many of these.  What these folks don't tell you is that in their opinion anyone that allows their female to become pg or if they don't neuther their male they are a breeder.   

Here are some quotes:

there is no excuse for breeding and selling animals when millions upon millions of them are being killed in shelters or suffering out on the streets.

There was also the standard drivel about "responsible" breeders (as if such a thing existed).

I disagree with your term "reputable breeder." As long as millions of perfectly healthy wonderful mixed-breed dogs are being tragically put down every year in animal shelters because of a lack of homes, NOBODY has any business churning out more puppies for ANY reason. Anyone who does is, indeed, self-serving. Breeders sell their dogs for money, right? I rest my case.

ALSO BELIEVE THAT IF PEOPLE THINKING OF GETTING A DOG WOULD CONSIDER ADOPTING BEFORE BUYING FROM A BREEDER. ALL THIS DOES IS SUPPORT BREEDERS AND THE OVERPOPULATION OF DOGS. ALSO GETTING YOUR DOGS FIXED WILL HELP TREMENDOUSLY. I AM 13 YEARS OLD

Overpopulation, due to irresponsible owners and breeders, is a major contributor to canine homelessness. One female dog and her offspring can produce 67,000 dogs in six years

Breeders are primarily responsible for the current overpopulation crisis.

The overpopulation crises in Palm Beach County, throughout Florida and across the country are out of control. Breeding is the cause. To stop the killing, we must stop the breeding.

Quotes from who and where are your sources?  Even if they're legit, and they probably are, they don't represent ALL shelters or ALL rescuers, so a blanket statement covering all is as reckless and irresponsible as the charges that ALL breeders are millers, which in my opinion, they are not.

 

BCMixs

so a blanket statement covering all is as reckless and irresponsible as the charges that ALL breeders are millers, which in my opinion, they are not.

So that statements made at the start that claim at all commercial breeders are just like the ones shown in the Oprah video that shows dogs kept in illegal conditions is false or maybe that all dogs in pet stores come from conditions as shown in the video is also false?

timsdat

Come on where have you been. 

I have been spending more time in various shelters and rescues throughout the US, than I have been spouting off political agendas as ludicrous as those suggesting that puppy mills are the cause of pet overpopulation moreso than unspayed/neutered pets being poorly managed.  IMO, very rarely have the relative whackjobs from LA/southern CA been representative of the entire US.  (Before the Californians get riled up - if you're not a whackjob, this doesn't apply to you. )

Also, many of the quotes you use could easily be construed to represent breeding of any kind -including the kind that result because people are irresponsible w/their unneutered/spayed dogs.  Not because there was any deliberate intent to "breed".  So, keep that in mind - people may have been making the point that spaying/neutering would stop the overpopulation.

To be clear, I am totally against mandatory spay/neuter as the bills are written these days.  I am totally against eliminating ethical responsible breeders - and anyone who believes they don't exist ("no such thing";) hasn't met one or seen the products of such breeders.  That is sad for them, but dangerous to the rest of us who want to keep our breeders.  Spaying/neutering should be more readily available for folks who cannot afford it, imo, and I am thrilled by any community that puts money/effort behind that initiative rather than mandatory spay/neuter, BSL, or many of the other dog-specific MANDATES rolling around.  The only mandates I want in effect are against ABUSE, mistreatment, and neglect.

HoundMusic

Breeders who sell to pet stores must be USDA or state licensed to sell to a broker, who in turn, sells the pup to the indivigual stores.

I couldn't wade through all the pages. Just wanted to show that not everyone follows even the USDA guidelines. And the USDA has never had enough people to police the situation.

Anyway, my dog, Shadow, was bought by friends around Labor Day weekend 2003 in a pet store when he was about 6 weeks old. He is a mix of Siberian Husky and Lab. Where in the USDA guidelines does it mention that it is legitimate to mix breeds? Anyway, the breeder's name is listed on the purchase papers. I cannot locate him on all the breeder lists I have searched. I cannot locate him on the anti-puppy mill sites. Ergo, he is probably a byb, unlicensed and never bothering with USDA guidelines. And the store that sold the pups on consignment has stonewalled me more than once in trying to get contact info. I was not interesting in busting the guy. I just wanted to confirm that the Sibe parent was a red and white, because of Shadow's four colors.

Now, does that sound like an up and up establishment, following the guidelines of only brokering for USDA licensed breeders?

Never mind the people I see on the side of the road and parking lots, with signs claiming a registry with some org or another.

What I'm trying to say is that the USDA thing is largely a futile exercise. There's not enough people to handle the job and the only pet store that I know sells puppies is not following the guidelines you suggested. And there's no waiting or interview or debriefing on the breed. You go in, you like, you see, you buy. A 6 week old puppy when puppies shouldn't be ready to re-home until at least 10 weeks.

ron2

HoundMusic

Breeders who sell to pet stores must be USDA or state licensed to sell to a broker, who in turn, sells the pup to the indivigual stores.

I couldn't wade through all the pages. Just wanted to show that not everyone follows even the USDA guidelines. And the USDA has never had enough people to police the situation.

Anyway, my dog, Shadow, was bought by friends around Labor Day weekend 2003 in a pet store when he was about 6 weeks old. He is a mix of Siberian Husky and Lab. Where in the USDA guidelines does it mention that it is legitimate to mix breeds? Anyway, the breeder's name is listed on the purchase papers. I cannot locate him on all the breeder lists I have searched. I cannot locate him on the anti-puppy mill sites. Ergo, he is probably a byb, unlicensed and never bothering with USDA guidelines. And the store that sold the pups on consignment has stonewalled me more than once in trying to get contact info. I was not interesting in busting the guy. I just wanted to confirm that the Sibe parent was a red and white, because of Shadow's four colors.

Now, does that sound like an up and up establishment, following the guidelines of only brokering for USDA licensed breeders?

Never mind the people I see on the side of the road and parking lots, with signs claiming a registry with some org or another.

What I'm trying to say is that the USDA thing is largely a futile exercise. There's not enough people to handle the job and the only pet store that I know sells puppies is not following the guidelines you suggested. And there's no waiting or interview or debriefing on the breed. You go in, you like, you see, you buy. A 6 week old puppy when puppies shouldn't be ready to re-home until at least 10 weeks.

Ron,please, look beyond whatever Shadow is......we are dealing with many more issues.....thank you......

Please, pay attention to this......thank you in advance..........

http://www.petitiononline.com/ea6gk/petition.html

ron2

Where in the USDA guidelines does it mention that it is legitimate to mix breeds? Anyway, the breeder's name is listed on the purchase papers. I cannot locate him on all the breeder lists I have searched. I cannot locate him on the anti-puppy mill sites. Ergo, he is probably a byb, unlicensed and never bothering with USDA guidelines.

Ron,

The USDA guidelines only cover standards of care and facilities.  It doesn't get into the hornets nest of who and what and to whom dogs should be bred.  Also there is a threshold of puppies produced in a year when a person is required to meet the standard of needing to be a USDA lisenced breeder.  You have to sell x number of puppies in a year at wholesale.  Very possible that this person could have had an oops litter or is small enough not to be on the radar.

 On another thought.

Now I have taked a lot of flack from folks that claim that I support puppy mills where dogs are kept in sub-standard conditions.  Well nothing could be further than the truth but I will support the rights of commercials breeders to conduct their business as long as they are following the laws in place and here is why.

To those who notice I always post any warning about BSL legislation that comes up and have had many discussions with others disagreeing with the need for BSL.  To tell you the truth I really don't care for the bully (not just APBT's and such but also their mixes) breeds.  They just aren't the breed for me.  Doesn't mean that they aren't great for someone else and I'm not one to try to force my likes or dislikes of a breed upon others and I defend anyones right to own one.  I don't like the way a number of people keep then and the reasons that they do.  They are a powerful breed that need partictular attention to the way they are kept and require extensive training to be good dogs.  That kind of stuff isn't happening with a number of owners and as a result, well you can read the headlines.  Well even though I don't like that breed type I would never support BSL against that type of breed because I know where it will end up.  The restrictions on other breeds will come next after this "problen" is resolved.  Breeds will continue to be restricted as they become the tough dog image to replace the pits.  This could eventually could affect many of the large breed dogs and probably a number of the terrier breeds. 

This is the very reason that I won't comdemn a breeder as long as they follow the law.  Doesn't mean I like the way that they are conducting their breeding program or that I would ever consider getting a dog that way but I won't condemn someone that is in compliance with the law.  And I always give people suggestions on where to get a dog if they ask me and trust me it isn't a store or who I would consider a BYB.

 It's funny, at one time a puppy miller was considered someone that was operating outside of the law and kept their dogs in substandard conditions and provided substandard care.  Well now it seems it is any commercial breeder is a puppy miller.  I wonder after the commercial breeders are legislated out of business who will be the puppy miller of tomorrow.  You know this attack against breeding isn't going to stop, I just wonder who is next.

In general it seems that in todays world there is this trend that if you aren't doing something the way I like you are wrong and if you are wrong there should be a law that requires you to do things the way that I like.  Can you say nanny laws.

Steve, I think the thing to remember is that 1) there are a large number of puppy mill operations who are NOT licensed or being inspected by the USDA.  In a number of cases here in my state (VA) no one but the pet stores and neighbors knew these places were operating until organizations like PETA went and videotaped and then notified the authorities.  But, unfortunately, because state laws are inadequate to shut someone down, the miller is negotiated with and allowed to retain 200 dogs when he wasn't licensed to have ANY.  Those are the types of abuses I want to see stopped, and the USDA laws only apply to those operating WITH licenses.  The USDA can't inspect operations that aren't licensed because they don't know who or where they are and they only have authority over operations that are licensed.   If you're operating without a license, it's a state matter and state laws addressing the issue are behind.  They think it's a USDA issue.  There's a gap that needs to be addressed.  There also aren't enough inspectors to adequately inspect MOST if not ALL of the areas the USDA is responsible for.  We saw that with the beef video and the subsequent recall.  You can recall beef from freezers and fridges across the country after something like that, you can't recall the hundreds of ill and behaviorally defective puppies that come out of an unlicensed, horrifically abusive puppy mill. 

I can tell you that when I researched the two papillions chosen at random, I discovered that the breeder had his license revoked by the USDA.  He moved to another state, continued operations and was issuing papers with a bogus USDA license number.  USDA couldn't have cared less when I called to notify them.  They are overwhelmed with the number of operations vs. the number of inspectors available.  Public opinion and outcrys for changes and tighter enforcement of the existing laws are what will get more money allocated to add inspectors and to pass laws in localities to address breeders like the one here in VA who retained 200 dogs after having nearly 800 seized due to horrible conditions and being unlicensed.  How anyone could justify the man retaining 200 dogs is beyond me. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/index.shtml Click on Animal Care's Regulation of Commercial Animal Dealerss: Q and A's

Also, to your point that as long as someone conforms to the law.  I'm a very law and order type person being a criminal justice major, so I'm all for laws and following them.  If there's one that's bad, work within the democratic process to get them changed.  If there's one that's absent, solicit your representatives to get one made.  However, you seem to feel that as long as there are some laws, that's enough.  I don't agree.  I feel that the current laws don't adequately address the issue and that there is a gap between the authority of the federal government via the USDA and that of localities which needs to be addressed.  That's why I support localities being free to pass the ordinances they feel are best for the citizens of their county and or state.  If the citizens of San Jose or New York or Miami through their elected officials choose to ban certain breeds or mandate spay neuter or limit breeders, I think that's okay.  They are the ones who are living there and they are creating the environment they choose.  Someone in a county across the country should not interfere.  That type of interference leads to national legislation which is broad and often poorly defined because it is attempting to cover all bases and ends up covering none. 

To me, I want the right and ability to speak with my local officials and discuss what I want to happen and not to happen in my county and in my state and not have that process interfered with by people who do not live here.  I also want to be free to notify national corporations such as pet store chains that sell dogs and cats that through the power of my dollars, I will or will not endorse their actions. 

ETA: One more link, just for S&Gs, Companion Animal Protection's response to USDA proposed changes to their regulations.  Interesting stuff here about audits of the USDA and their inspection capacities: 

 Companion animal response

"New Policy:  Inspections and Enforcement.    The AWA requires commercial breeders to provide their animals with adequate housing,  nutrition, water and veterinarian care, and to protect the animals from extreme weather and  temperature and unsanitary conditions.  Since 1995, CAPS has investigated over 1,000  commercial breeding facilities in sixteen states and has documented significant violations of  APHIS’s Animal Care program in each of those states.  Animals are frequently found in poor physical and emotional health, without food or water, and living in their own waste, often next to  dead or dying companions.  The AWA, 7 U.S.C. § 2146, expressly provides USDA with ample  inspection and enforcement authority to ensure that its minimum animal care and welfare  standards are being met. 

Notwithstanding this authority, APHIS’ Animal Care Program has been  audited at least four times over the past twenty years and each time was found lacking in its  inspection and enforcement efforts.  For example, in 1985, the U.S. General Accounting Office reviewed USDA’s Animal Welfare  Program and found that many regulated facilities were not being inspected, as required.  In 1992,  USDA’s independent Inspector General audited the program and found that inspections still were  not being performed at many facilities, and that when inspections were performed and violations  discovered, USDA did not require timely correction of those violations.  The USDA Inspector  General again audited the program in 1995 and found that many of the deficiencies noted in its  1992 report had not been corrected.  In addition, the 1995 report noted that when enforcement  action was taken, the penalties were so low that many facilities simply incorporated the penalties  into their cost of doing business.  This finding was repeated in 2005 when yet another USDA  Inspector General report was issued specifically addressing APHIS’s inspection and enforcement  program activities under the Animal Care Program.  That report specifically cited the “lack of  clear National guidance” as a contributing factor in the agency’s underperforming enforcement  program.  CAPS believes that APHIS must adopt “clear National Guidance” for its inspection and  enforcement program.  That guidance should be incorporated into the Animal Care Policy  Manual.  CAPS recommends that a task force be assigned to review the four major audit reports  discussed above, identify the principle deficiencies identified in those reports, and prepare  guidelines for how to improve the Animal Care investigation and enforcement program.  At a  minimum, APHIS should adopt a policy stating the minimum number of annual inspections that  must be performed at each licensed commercial breeding facility under its jurisdiction.  Such a  policy might include a tiered inspection program based on past performance and the date of  license.  Newer facilities and known violators should be inspected more frequently.  CAPS  recommends that APHIS use the basic information and format contained in its May 2005 Animal  Care Compliance Inspections Fact Sheet as a framework document for the new policy, and then  supplement that information with specific recommendations for improving the performance of  the inspection and enforcement program. " 

 (Emphasis added is mine, not in original document.)

So please, no one tell me that the USDA is taking care of and protecting these animals, it's clearly not.   

 Ron,

  You can find lists of USDA breeders here:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/efoia/index.shtml

You can also call them with the name and they can search their database for you.  Maybe YOU (having actually purchased the dog) can file a complaint.  They would not accept a complaint from me regarding the papillions because I didn't actually buy them.
 

BCMixs

However, you seem to feel that as long as there are some laws, that's enough.  I don't agree. 

It sounds like to me that if the laws don't suit your desires that they are inadequate.

BCMixs

That's why I support localities being free to pass the ordinances they feel are best for the citizens of their county and or state.  If the citizens of San Jose or New York or Miami through their elected officials choose to ban certain breeds or mandate spay neuter or limit breeders, I think that's okay.  They are the ones who are living there and they are creating the environment they choose.  Someone in a county across the country should not interfere

Well that is all fine and dandy but the folks that are working to pass restrictive laws in local areas aren't playing by those rules and as long as they don't I won't either.  When Florida gave constitutional rights to pregnant pigs the H$U$ spent millions of dollars raised from out of state to help get that amendment passed.  They brought hundreds of people from out of state to get people to sign petitions.

 Constitutional rights?  Uh huh, real educated.  I guess the ability to move is something you take for granted.  It's called Animal Welfare, not a Constitutional right.  Gestational crates are inhumane, to regulate their use isn't a constitutional right! 

And yes, if the laws or lack of them don't suit my needs or opinions of how thing should be, I solicit my elected officials, it's America, that's what we do.  Remember that man named Martin Luther King, he didn't think the laws and lack of them suited his needs either.  Guess he was one of the CRAZY radicals.  If Florida is doing things properly (as we found they often don't during the last election) petition signatures signed by out of area people are rejected.  Elected officials *should* respond to the needs and wants of their constituents, not succumb to the pressures of outside organizations.  If they don't, don't re-elect them. 

timsdat

Very possible that this person could have had an oops litter or is small enough not to be on the radar.

That's been my thinking, too.

And for what it's worth to the other one who has to continually bust my chops about Shadow, the only reason I mentioned that was to show that I was seeking info in a non-confrontational way a few years ago and couldn't get any cooperation from a store that sells puppies and supposedly should only do so from USDA-licensed breeders and that the idealism hasn't met the reality. I understand there are great big issues and even the small ones can't be addressed if others aren't following the rules.

I just looked at the USDA list and no luck there, either. Which means there are stores out there (I know of at least one) that sell pups from non-licensed individuals. We could add all the laws we want but if there is not strong enough penalties and not enough people to enforce it, not much will happen from it.

We can always say "buyer beware" but many buyers are not aware and some, in spite of education they might receive from friends such as us, might go ahead and buy from such a place, anyway. So, we're going to have to hope for education. If one is to buy from a store, insist on records and proof that the pups came from a licensed breeder. And perhaps, report stores that aren't following the guidelines, though that may not do much good, at present. If there are not enough investigators, then it will be a back burner issue.

BCMixs

  Constitutional rights?  Uh huh, real educated.  I guess the ability to move is something you take for granted.  It's called Animal Welfare, not a Constitutional right.  Gestational crates are inhumane, to regulate their use isn't a constitutional right! 

It is written in the constitution and got there via voter initiative.  Ok we are going real off topic here but I feel that I need to respond.  Have you have never lived on a farm, worked on a farm or even been to one.  A gestation crate is not much different that a whelping pen.  It is designed to protect the piglets from being crushed by their mother which happens when a pen isn't used.  In countries where the crates are banned the mortality rate of piglets is 25%, when crates are used the rate is less than 2%.  And by the way the sow can get up and turn around.  All that propaganda you have seen is a bunch of bunk.  The pen also allows for the farmer the ability to handle and check the piglets without being in danger from the sow.  Guess what the AVMA doesn't think that the crates are inhumane either.  They ok the use.  This is a perfect example of when you let a bunch of people vote to regulate a business that they know nothing about.  They see all the slick commercials on TV that don't reflect the truth and want to feel good about the animals.  Interesting the breakdown from this vote.  All the highly urban counties where people have no connection with rural life voted widely in favor of the ban.  In counties that know something about farming soundly rejected the ban.

BCMixs

Remember that man named Martin Luther King, he didn't think the laws and lack of them suited his needs either.  Guess he was one of the CRAZY radicals. 

Please tell me you are not comparing the civil right movement to the animals rights movement.

 Great post BCMixs. There are often reasons for new laws to be made......yes and they will be made, to satisfy the way some of us believe...in humane practices for animals.

The wording of many animal welfare laws is just too vague. It is often why nothing is done. People do not want to waste their time on something that will be thrown out of court. It took years, to get a place in our area closed down. People were never allowed out where the dogs were kept. Any time a buyer went there, the pups would be brought up to the house. Without the proper evidence, no one could get a search warrant to investigate. Their inspection always passed, as pretty much the way the laws were written, it was just a judgment call. Some that are making that judgment call, probably don't have a clue.  They are probably just as uneducated, as to what humane animal care is, as the kennel owners are, whose kennels they are inspecting.  And so, in many instances, we need new laws in order to make things much more clear on what humane animal care is....not just something vague such as food, shelter and water.