Editorial suggests the US needs to expand sources for puppies

No Gravatar

I received the link today on the Pack News Wire to an editorial that ran Monday on the DVM360 website. I was so stunned that I had to read over it several times.

The writer, Mark Cushing, JD of the Animal Policy Group is suggesting an expanding US market for dogs needs to look overseas for breeding sources for puppies, as our human population grows.

Cushing lists what he feels are US sources for dogs, which includes hobby breeders (he states the volume there isn’t enough), large-scale breeders (but he notes puppy mills are an issue) and “Untreated feral dogs in the American South and Midwest producing litters for delivery by local shelters to urban markets around the country.”

On the latter “source” he goes on to write that is “difficult to view this as an intentional, humane source of the volume needed, although it is a steady source now.”

It is a strange take that I’ve never seen worded so oddly. In reality, it is not so much feral dogs who are adding to the homeless ranks.

How he lists “untreated feral dogs” as a source to fill what he states as a growing US demand for pets, without mentioning homeless adult dogs and puppies that are ready for adoption is stunning. How he writes an editorial about the demand for pets without noting millions of homeless pets are dying in shelters every year – before they find homes is stunning.

And it is stunning that Cushing fails to mention that by far the best “sources” for pets in the United States are your area shelters and rescue organization.

I’ll give Cushing the benefit of the doubt, to a degree, in that he might have been focusing on puppies. But again, new homeless dogs are being born every day all over the nation. Rescue is the BEST source for pets.

We absolutely do not need anyone suggesting families should look to overseas breeders for puppies, while millions of dogs are dying in the US without homes.

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel features the real problems with substandard dog breeding

No Gravatar

I was really pleased to see that Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel has dipped into this issue of dog shows and breed standards – through the American Kennel Club and others – and horrible breeding practices in general.

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

Basically, a good video about dog breeds and aggression – with one big problem

No Gravatar

The producers of the video below did a pretty good job – on the topic of aggression and dog breeds. Just because a dog happens to be of a particular breed, doesn’t mean he or she will exhibit a particular behavior, aggression or other behaviors.

But one major mistake is made in the video. The reporter states dogs from shelters or rescue groups tend to be more aggressive than those purchased from breeders. BIG ERROR there.

Many of the dogs that end up in shelters or with rescue groups originated from breeders. Some of these dogs are in shelters because families turned them in due to behavioral issues. Why? – Because too many breeders are pulling puppies away from their mothers and litter mates at too young an age and are selling them at 6 to 8 weeks old.

The puppies need more time with mothers, to learn proper social behaviors. So to claim dogs from shelters or rescues might exhibit aggression in a higher percentage, merely because they are from shelters or rescues is inaccurate at best.

Poor breeding practices or acts of cruelty or general mistreatment are the key and unfortunate factors that generally lead to negative behavior in dogs.

And I must add that in my experience, shelter dogs and cats can show gratitude and can offer an adopting family a special kind of love.

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

Video: A look into online puppy sales

No Gravatar

A reader, Twitter friend and fellow animal-welfare advocate has requested that I post information about the organization, Purebred Breeders. It took a few seconds to find the following video from HSUS – from December of 2011.

Back on December 7, 2011, the Today Show featured a segment about Purebred Breeders, which reportedly covers almost 800 websites.

In a post on the HSUS website from Dec. of 2011, Jonathan Lovvorn, senior vice president for animal protection litigation and investigations for HSUS is quoted as saying:

“Purebred Breeders reaps massive profits by purchasing puppies from puppy mills around the country and selling them at a huge mark-up to dog lovers who would never knowingly buy a puppy mill dog.”

Spread the word everywhere you possibly can and through as many means as possible. People should never purchase puppies or kittens before visiting the breeding facility and before insisting on a full tour. Otherwise, the risk is too great that they were bred at a puppy mill or kitten mill.

And for the millionth time, tell everyone that of the top 25 strategies for adding a new furry family member, No. 1 through No. 24 involve adopting through a rescue group or shelter.

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

Some dog breeders file lawsuit to block regulations

No Gravatar

Apparently, some dog breeders do not want to engage in even minimal welfare standards for welfare practices. As the USDA proposed a move of covering commercial breeders who sell directly to the public under the Animal Welfare Act, some breeders made it clear they do not want to fall under these minimal standards.

They have filed a lawsuit to block expansion of the rules.

Other breeders already fall under the act. But the system needs a upgrade, as too few inspectors are on the job to enforce the regulations, as they they stand now.

In reality, breeders who refuse to house and care for animals under these current, less-than-stringent guidelines should not be allowed to operate at all. Those who refuse proper veterinary care and those who house their dogs or cats in tiny cages 24/7 and those who never allow their animals time for play or exercise or proper food and water should be shut down – today.

It is difficult to understand how anyone could suggest all breeders should NOT be covered under at lease these very minimum standards of care in the Animal Welfare Act. If we shut down the puppy mill operators for good, the costs of enforcing the act will go down. If we shut the puppy mills down and slap some real punishment for the offenders, the penalty will be too great and the risk will be too big for other puppy mill operators.

It is time to see real action against puppy mills.

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

Connecticut city considers ban on puppy and kitten sales in stores

No Gravatar

Hartford, Conn. held a second of two public hearing last week on a proposed ban on the sale of puppies and kittens in stores that originate from kitten or puppy mills. The legislation would limit the “sales” to what the Fairfield Patch website calls “humanely sourced puppies.”

The article reports one opponent of banning the sale of puppies in stores read from a newspaper ad concerning pit bulls needing new homes. He was quoted a saying, “We are in business because people don’t want an old pit bull dog.”

That’s ridiculous and it is the typical propaganda that falsely claims all homeless dogs are either pit bulls or mutts. Clearly, the nation would NOT have the thousands over thousands of breed-specific rescues operating, if the only dogs in the homeless ranks were pit bulls and mixed-breeds.

Puppies and kittens should not be sold like toasters in stores. Adopting or purchasing a pet is a lifetime commitment, where an adoption-application is part of the process. It is not something that should be an impulse decision by shoppers.

In addition, the buyer has no way of confirming the conditions where the puppies are bred. No one should purchase a puppy or kitten without confirming how the parent dogs are being treated. It is far too risky.

 

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

Wacky Mentality for Nov. 4: Odd statements on breeding and animal welfare

No Gravatar

Some people just continue to pull in their thoughts from regions beyond our solar system. This, of course, is assuming intelligent life does not exist beyond the Earth. But then again, intelligent life is limited here too.

The Pack News Wire included an editorial posted on HoosierAGToday.com – under the headline: “The Hidden Agenda Behind The Animal Care Movement.”
This was odd enough. Not the ‘animal rights movement,’ as we typically see. The headline suggests the animal care movement has a hidden agenda. What? – your vet is out to take over the world?

But Gary Truitt actually states – “The real agenda behind the animal activist movement is the total domination and, in some cases, elimination of animal agriculture.”

The fact that this is not happening really doesn’t seem to bother Truitt. But his claims are really based on the fact that those who support compassion and animal welfare want to see abuse exposed, in some cases with undercover video of people actually torturing animals.

So since people with compassion want to prevent acts of animal cruelty and see to it that abuse is uncovered, Truitt falsely claims that means they want total domination. That’s wacky.

AND – A headline on RoyalCentral.co.uk reads – “Animal Welfare Act endangers the Queens corgis.”

And why is this claim made? – Because the act bans the act of tail docking for cosmetic reasons for dogs.
So if breeders don’t get to engage in this completely unnecessary but cruel practice, they just don’t want to breed that dog. So the fear is the Queen won’t be able to buy more corgis because those who set the breed standard won’t like the dogs with full tails – the way nature intended.

From the piece –

The ban on docking has changed the look of the corgi; therefore breeders are not continuing to raise the Pembroke Corgi.
Just because they don’t get to chop off each dog’s tail. That’s wacky.
AND -
Falling below the number required will place in on a “vulnerable native breeds list.”

Native breeds list – ? They are all related to wolves. The welfare of the dogs should come first, not a native breeds list.

The Queen should decree henceforth to adopt homeless pets. What a great example that would set.

 

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

Local, online poll shows huge support for anti-puppy mill laws

No Gravatar

Online polls can be a bit unscientific, the numbers found in a local news station poll this week are incredible. WWAY in Wilmington, NC asked readers if they think North Carolina needs to enact tougher puppy-mill laws.

Just up the road from Wilmington, around 100 dogs were recently rescued in a raid on a rural puppy mill.

As of Friday morning, 762 people had voted in the poll, with 92 percent voting YES. While any reasonable person would vote this way, a few did go with NO or Don’t Know/Don’t Care.

Our nation is divided on many political issues and as we’re seeing right now, gridlock is the new norm. But our collective love for animals brings people of all political corners into agreement. Now we just need our elected officials follow the movement. To date, too many elected officials at the state and federal level have been caving in to special-interest groups, who regularly lobby against any and all breeding regulations and/or animal-welfare laws.

In its next session, the North Carolina General Assembly will take up a new anti-puppy mill bill, which has passed one house already.  Any puppy-mill regulations need to include regular, unannounced inspections; requirements for daily exercise and play time; regular veterinary care and standards for kennel sizes and construction.

Our current laws in North Carolina and at the federal level are far too weak. Don’t let anyone tell you current laws are good enough, if enforced. There are gaping holes in current regulations – especially for breeders – in NC and elsewhere.

Enforcement is one key area, but currently, law enforcement does not have the guidelines it needs. Conditions have to be reach extreme levels before police and sheriff departments can act. By that point, the suffering might have gone on for years. Without inspections, we’ve seen puppy mills operate undiscovered for years, if not decades. So many are operating freely right now.

 

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

Dispelling a Myth: The phrase ‘puppy mill’ does have a legal definition

No Gravatar

I continue to read insane propaganda from those who support puppy mills and those who fight against any and all legislation directed to shutting down more mills.

One of the myths circling around websites, message boards and comment sections is the one making the false claim that the phrase ‘puppy mill’ does not have a legal definition. It’s as odd as claiming the moon does not exist.

Within any existing piece of legislation regarding the regulation of breeders, where standards of care are part of the legislation, we can find the standards that define a substandard breeding operation – a puppy mill. It is true that in many cases the regulations do not go far enough.

But there are penalties involved for breeders who fall below the basic standards.

In many cases, the breeders are required to offer regular veterinary care, house their dogs to minimum standards (some banning the use of wire flooring), offer the dogs regular periods for exercise and provide them clean food and water. So in a very minimum level, a puppy mill operation would fail within any one or more of these areas.

Clearly, a substandard breeding operation is define and therefore a puppy mill is defined. So the next time you read a comment from someone claiming ‘puppy mill’ does not have a legal definition, point out the clearly defined definition. Although these individuals often have a lot of trouble with reading comprehension, others might better understand the topic.

I was reading a news article recently about a store planning to open in a Toledo, Ohio – where puppies will be sold. How the mall – in 2013 – could even consider this move is beyond belief. But some of the comments under the story might be funny if the topic was not so serious.

One person used the same old tired propaganda about there being no definition of a puppy mill. And she went further, claiming bad breeders could not possibly hide from view now. And get this, she claims all of the videos from puppy mill raids are old. (These people will claim anything at this point.)

She goes on to claim:

— Sick puppies don’t sell, so puppy mills couldn’t possibly sell sick puppies. (Of course she fails to note that these breeders don’t take sick puppies back and in some cases, the puppies get sick later or develop cancers later.)

— She claims most commercial breeders have state-of-the art kennels and are inspected every year. (Clearly, this is not true, as we only recently saw the USDA change the rules to cover the thousands of breeders who sell over the Internet or in ads.)

— She tries to claim improved regulations won’t help shut down puppy mills. (If that was the case, the puppy mill supporters would not be working so hard to stop the improved regulations from passing – in states across the county.)

But in too many cases, current regulations are far too weak, in regard to the housing, exercise time and veterinary care – and in the punishment for animal cruelty. So clearly we need better regulations.

— And she leaves one the highly-false claims for last, one we see spewed out often. She claims breeders are not responsible for dogs going into shelters.

She is partly correct in suggesting irresponsible people are to blame. But in too many cases, people are buying puppies from substandard breeders – through stores or over the Web – and then turning them in to shelters after they show behavioral problems or health problems.

If these puppy mill breeders would follow breeding practices that include genetic health factors and if they would stop selling puppies at 6 weeks old, the situation would be greatly improved.

 

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

Two articles – two peculiar statements – on dog racing and puppy sales

No Gravatar

Regular visitors to the Pack Mentality Blog know the disdain I have for greyhound racing. So when I read articles about the horrible industry and I see wacky comments from supporters of dog racing, it really gives me the finger-nails-on-the-chalkboard feeling.

I’ve read a couple of articles over the last week about a report sponsored by the Florida state legislature, a report that called dog racing a dying industry. The Florida Times-Union story from July 6 notes even those operating tracks in the state want out. But a lobbyist is quoted as claiming one problem is the condition of the racetracks – and the report claimed he said going to the track was unpleasant for visitors.

My response is this – Tell it to the greyhounds. It’s more than unpleasant every day for them. But I guess that doesn’t matter for some people.

Then we have a quote from Philadelphia Eagles running back Bryce Brown’s attorney, after his previously seized dog and her pups were returned to him. Authorities took a number of dogs from a property where the owner was charged with mistreating animals and operating a dog-breeding operation without a license.

In a Leader Telegram story from June 28, Brown’s attorney made a claim about the “value of puppies” decreasing the older they get.

“It’s a lot easier to sell 8-week-old puppies than it is to sell eight-month-old puppies.”

The fact is – puppies should not be sold at 8 weeks old. Puppies should remain with their mom and siblings for at least 12 weeks. They learn important social skills over this span. And of course the real “value” of dogs has nothing to do with sale prices.

 

PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic