Yuku free message boards

Hi Basia,

I apologize for not returning to your post sooner.

Well, I honestly don't know with scientific certainty the financial situation of millers as an economic group. I do know of the Hunte Corporation and that on their website and in their PR they present themselves as a regular "prosperous" American Corporation, but as I said, I think that most of the operations that supply Hunte are fairly typical puppy mills and bybs.

I believe that most animal welfare laws in most states are set up to look for neglectful and cruel individuals who leave a couple of horses starving on untrimmed feet or the local cat lady or an owner who keeps a dog chained to a dog house in the heat with no water. It also seems to me that many such laws are motivated by an interest in protecting property values rather than animal welfare ( so youll see a lot of regulation regarding the number of dogs and barking in urban areas) On the other hand, I think most states welfare laws are generally unable to respond to the problems of large scale dog breeding operations in areas zoned for agricultural use.It seems to me that lawmakers try to steer clear of regulating livestock operations because of "the farm lobby" and what I think of as the American tradition of laissez faire toward farmers and ranchers. To me puppy millers take advantage of their marginality by hiding in plain sight in isolated agricultural areas.

I think the cost and time involved in truly caring for 25 dogs and puppies would be very, very high. Think of the time and expense we put into our dogs. To me, a breeder is equally (perhaps more) obligated to exercise, interact with and give general care to each animal she keeps. I think that every breeder is also obligated to provide an abundance of breed specific attention to to her dogs, especially her puppies. If you look at the link to the anti-puppy mill organization on the page I cited you'll see what I believe to be a very typical situation. The guy is pulling a border pup out of a wire flooered "rabbitcage" where it is kept with a russel and god knows what else. I think it highly unlikely that this yahoo knows much more about the pups in the cage than that they "keep" well together for the most part (especially when they are too cold and hungry to fight).

I hope I've responded in a meaningful fashion... bb this evening. Thank you so much for giving me feedback on this.

P.S. Quickly .... here's a quote from the pdf linked document:

The bill requires licensees to provide dogs with adequate food, water, veterinary

care, shelter, and opportunity for exercise. The bill requires enclosures for dogs to

be of appropriate size and structurally sound. It requires licensees to keep

enclosures clean and to follow restrictions on the use of wire flooring. Under the bill,

a licensee must ensure that each dog is observed every day in order to monitor the

health and temperament of the dog and provide care as needed.

Hey Critical Cat,

Yes I see what you mean now, and I hope my honest answer doesn't sound too crackpot. Until the last national election, I wouldn't have entertained the idea that we should look to our government take a practical interest in the well being of dogs . But now, quite simply, with President Obama in office and with his administration resolutely refusing to even passively participate in human rights violations I have hope that we are entering an era in which our lawmakers and the civil authorities might be persuaded to extend reasonable humanitarianism to domestic animals through considered legislation developed in partnership with concerned dog enthusiasts.

Also, I feel an impulse toward optimism as I look at the situation in Wisconisn. It appears to me that a strong anti-puppy mill organization worked closely with two Wisconsin legislators who in turn sincerely tried to develop law and policy that when enforced would make it extremely difficult for the millers to turn a quick buck. It also seems to me that the partnership between the anti-puppy mill group and government officials might well continue to be effective. Yes,it seems highly problematic to put control over important dog issues entirely in the hands of civil servants, but I don't see any reason to believe that the partnership between the organization and the state would fail to flourish . Still, I probably wouldn't be arguing this course if I could see some reasonable alternative to civil oversight of dog breeding.

To me, only an interest outside the dog establishment (The AKC and the powerful breed clubs like The JRTCA and ABCA) can effectively control the practices of breeders with regard to the numbers of dogs they breed and keep, the conditions in which breed dogs are kept, the way they place their pups, as well as their management of genetic issues which to me are currently much less related to physical ailments and conditions and more problems of temperament and behavior than used be the case. I think that many legitimate breeders hesitate to be active in this area because they know that they themselves keep and breed too many dogs and don't want their own kennels and breeding operations scrutinized too closely. As for the large, powerful organizations that ideally would oversee dog welfare, I think that the American Kennel Club is the most obvious example of the dog world's inability to govern itself. For one thing, I would think that right minded puppy millers would remember the AKC and the ABCA in their bedtime prayers since litter registration allows them to tack on a couple of hundred dollars on each pup (he's "registered with the AKC, dontcha know?!). The JRTCA isn't pure as the driven snow, but it is greatly to the club's credit that they register only adult dogs who have passed a fairly rigorous veterinary exam and breed quality evaluation. And here's another sad association: isn't the AKC's fierce insistence on being an umbrella purebred registry for breeds that have little more than their species in common a sad parallel to the puppy miller with his rabbit cage full of small breed puppies? But at bottom, it seems to me that all of these organizations are involved in a fundamentally symbiotic relationship with breeders and simply can't effect significant changes in breeding practices.

So, I'm looking for a means to insist that dogs are bred properly in this country. Who would be the ideal agent for change in this direction? While I admire many things in our breed organizations and dog clubs, their ability to promote the general welfare of dogs isn't one of them. What does that leave me with? My duly elected local, state and national officials I suppose.

I hope this response isn't too laden with rhetoric to begin to be a useful reply. I'm very interested in ASPCA. If they are as intelligent and concerned for animal well being as they seem to be, then I would think they would be a logical candidate for encouraging our government to take an "official interest" in the problem of overbreeding. I have been looking at their website a bit and am seriously astonished by the information and activity level there. I'm sorry to say that I while I know that the organization has played a large role in promoting animal welfare in this country, I know next to nothing about their involvement with dogs. I do know that the ASPCA has had the good sense to look to Brian and Sarah in the past, so they are right on in that regard.

This week I plan to look into the Wisconsin anti-puppy mill group and perhaps get in touch with them. Maybe I'll get a hard core reality check. Who knows? I also want to spend some serious time on the ASPCA site and see if I'm just reinventing the wheel with this stuff.

P.S. I still haven't addressed your concerns, have I? Unfortunately I think I'm still thinking it through for myself....