Dr. Khuly:

In addition to your quoting Dr. Kay's ignorance regarding puppy mills, why don't you tell your readers what she said in the rest of her blog. She advises what she learned from Jennifer Fearing, the California senior state director for the Humane Society of the United States. If you are going to say something, say it all. Don't let readers think badly of Dr. Kay. Let them read the WHOLE THING.

Are you thinking that your readers will like Dr. Kay's blog TOO much?

Hey, good people. Read the whole story at:

http://speakingforspot.com/blog/?p=1924

Perhaps I should have told it all. But not because I believe her resource, Jennifer Fearing, is in any way a dubious one. Just because Ms. Fearing works for an organization whose principles we may sometimes question does not mean that the passion, intelligence and perseverance of its employees isn't worth lauding every once in a while. If I didn't mention Dr. Kay's HSUS sources straightaway it's either because it's not central to my point and/or because I prefer to skip the acrimony that too often accompanies both sides of this so-called debate.

In this instance, wouldn't you say that it's a pertinent fact that HSUS is so deeply involved?

I would.

HSUS has 30+ attorneys on its payroll. That's where a substantial portion of your donations are going, to finance the salaries of those who are writing anti-ownership animal law. Attorneys don't come cheap. And that doesn't count the outside counsel they are paying to answer the lawsuits they are fighting.

Oddly, my exerience is that the greatest vitriol comes from HSUS supporters, not its opponents.

Sorry, I think I may have misunderstood your comment. Maybe it's too early yet and I need more coffee. Either way, if anything I'm a staunch supporter or Dr. Kay and Jennifer Fearing. Both should be pretty obvious from my post and my preceding comment. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

I know our training in veterinary medicine has to cover all species, but I cringe when we start talking about production medicine. It just doesn't fit with my view of the proper use/care of animals. I equate puppymills to be the same thing and as you said, if they are to exisit they need to be regulated just as strictly as poultry/swine/cattle operations.

Then I think of inter-breeding, tiny cages, sleeping in their own BMs, nasty-water,unclean, no medical care. Did I miss-any-thing. As long as people buy from these so-call-Breeder, this will go on. When their Pet Kids gets bad medical problems, Because of inter-breeding........People need a wake-call. Got a call today, some no-kill-shelters.are...having to kill, running out of room and food. Makes me sick.

Dr. Khuly, you and Dr. Kay have both missed a couple of really important points.

One is that these new rules apply to anyone who owns ten breeding females--and that the definition of a "breeding female" is a bitch who is intact at the age of six months or older. There's also a catch the "owned" bit: It apparently includes co-owned dogs.

What's the problem with that? The problem is that responsible breeders a)don't breed a female before the age of two years b)large breed dogs should not be spayed or neutered until the growth plates have closed, which might be anywhere from eighteen months to three years c)pack hunting breeds, if they are actually being worked, are normally kept intact--and no, well-run hunting packs don't have many accidental litters. Oh, and hunting packs aren't limited to fewer than ten dogs. d)Responsible breeders often retain co-ownership on show quality dogs that they have sold, SO THAT they can have some control and prevent the dog from being bred inappropriately. Someone who's been breeding for twenty years, at even one or two litters a year--you do the math, especially in large breeds that tend to have large litters.

So the new rules apply to quite a few people who aren't remotely involved in the industrial production of puppies for the pet trade, which leads us to the problems with the "standards" applied--which is that they essentially forbid what most responsible breeders: keep the dogs in the house, with soft beds, on soft flooring, with toys that can't all easily be sterilized. Hunting packs aren't kept inside the house, but in a kennel--but not with bare concrete flooring.

The fundamental problem is that these rules were written by people who have no clue about the practices of responsible breeders who love their dogs--and in fact don't even believe in the possibility of such, so they're happy to pass rules that MANDATE "puppy mill" conditions for people who will simply refuse to do that to their dogs.

Oh, and there's another problem, one that you, and Dr. Kay, and Jennifer Fearing, should have noticed. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm wrong about everything I said above. Let's assume these rules are PERFECT. There's still a fatal flaw, for all those dogs who are genuinely suffering in puppy mill hell.

THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ENFORCEMENT.

Most of the genuine animal welfare concerns addressed in Prop B ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL under animal welfare laws, and those standards aren't being enforced because there aren't enough personnel or enough dollars for enforcement, and it just isn't a priority.

So Prop B will make no difference to the dogs who really need relief, but will provide a weapon for a neighbor disgruntled over something else to use against a responsible breeder whose dogs are loved, cared for, and living in the legally-unacceptable conditions of a warm, comfortable, well-maintained home.

I've read the Dr. K's post several times. I don't see where these animals are forbidden to be kept in a house. Obviously there's more to this law than what is posted here, but still don't see how you came to that conclusion.


Responsible people have been paying for the actions of bad apples forever. Do you think good breeders are exempt from this?

Agree about the lack of $$ for enforcement.

You need to read the entire law, not just the things Dr. Kay has pulled from it. There are specific requirements for the housing of the dogs that aren't going to be met in normal human housing--for instance, do you have concrete or tile flooring EVERYWHERE in your house?

Yes, responsible people pay for the actions of the irresponsible all the time. That shouldn't be the _goal_ of legislation though, to MAKE responsible people pay for the actions of the irresponsible. This is a law which is going to make it _harder_ to breed _responsibly_ and raise puppies in the conditions we WANT family pets to be raised in.

It makes puppy mill conditions MORE likely, not less likely.

And none of the good this law attempts to do will be accomplished without additional funding for enforcement, whereas WITH additional funding for enforcement of existing animal welfare laws, that good would be accomplished _without_ placing additional burdens on people who are already doing it right--who love their dogs, care for them, and give the puppies the best possible start in life.

If the abuses were already addressed, why the need for a new law? Something just doensn't add up here.

Agreed laws should be well-written.

It's easier to get people stirred up with emotional images to demand a new, more restrictive law than it is to make the boring and unwelcome case that MORE MONEY needs to be spent enforcing the current laws. Also, some of the push behind these restrictive laws comes from the Animal Rights end of the spectrum. For those people, the animal welfare issues are just a stalking horse for the real goal of eliminating all domestic animals and all contact between humans and animals.

That's why Jennifer Fearing's connection to this is a hot issue for some; she's an HSUS representative, and HSUS has at least seriously flirted with Animal Rights, although there are some indications that they may have started to turn back from that--and Ms. Fearing MAY be a part of that turning-back.

@ Eilis - But HSUS *is* an animal rights organization! Their entire upper management team, including Pacelle, JP Goodwin - who is a convicted felon, wjp came from a militant *terrorist* Ar group - ar militant animal rights activists! Yes, now they wear suits, and talk about animal welfare, but I ask you again: How much support could they get if they admitted to being animal rights vegans, whose agenda is converting the world to their lifestyle?

I haven't time tonight to look up the whole list of bad guys in upper management, but if you can't find them yourselves, I'll post next week.

HSUS *is* a vegan animal rights organization, and is not in any way friendly to animals. The vegan goal is to eliminate all animal products and animals from human lives. All ... food, clothing, companionship, exhibition, working animals. All.

They don't care what they have to do to accomplish this. To them, they hold the high 'moral' ground, and the end justifies any means to hand. Pacelle himself (CEO) has NO animal background; his Ivy League degree is in ... wait for it ... MARKETING.

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
Wayne Pacelle — Animal People News, May 1993

"I don't have a hands-on fondness for animals ... To this day I don't feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there's no special bond between me and other animals." Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 251.

I sincerely doubt 'good' breeders will just say to themselves, "Well. I'd better toss the dogs outside then." Could you link to the full text that describes these unreasonable requirements? Even the one for concrete? The version I read just says 'solid' floor (which carpet over plywood, linoleum and wood floors all are) and I couldn't find anything requiring toys to be sterilized at all... are there different versions??

That said, if they're not enforcing the laws on the books already, the ones that say you've got to give animals proper food, clean water, reasonable clean living space and medically necessary care, I doubt this one will get enforced either.

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit hunting or the ability to breed, raise, or sell hunting dogs." Straight from the text I found, so those folks with hunting breeds needn't worry at all, apparently.

(Except as other sections may be applied) I wouldn't make any such assumption, if I had a hound kennel. Since they can't tell an Aussie from a pit bull, I predict raids followed by "oops! sorry! Too bad your hounds have all been sterilized and dispersed across the country." The way these statutes are enforced elsewhere, nobody is exempt - except the USDA licensed breeders, of course.

Of course it doesn't add up. There are adequate animal cruelty laws all over the country, if they were consistently enforced.

Bills like this aren't designed to prevent animal cruelty, and even if they were, when has ANY law ever prevented anything? I mean, we have laws against homicide, theft, rape, speeding ... why bother with police forces, we have laws against these things, don't we?

These laws are designed to limit animal ownership, and that's all they are designed for. They are all complaint driven; none is funded, but they are so sloppily written that a malicious neighbour can make a complaint and you can lose your animals to one fresh dump in a kennel run or some tartar on your dog's teeth. That's what they're designed to do - remove animals from their owners.

That this kind of regulation doesn't relieve animals of potential abuse is clearly illustrated by the video of Smithfield's breeding operation, recently released by HSUS. These sows are on easily cleaned, and in fact near impeccable survaces, the fittings all stainless steel, etc. They are without question the CLEANEST pigs I've ever seen. But how could anyone find it acceptable to keep sows in crates so small they are unable even to turn around?

These facilities are, of course, under USDA oversight, as are high volume commercial kennels. and no State legislation addresses these facilities, because they are under USDA oversight.

The targets of these laws are individual, independent breeders, who, as has been observed upthread, either don't subject their animals to kennels at all, bring their bitches in to the hoses to whelp, or keep them in kennels which greatly exceed in terms of space any of these requirements. Concrete is not good footing for any animals, USDA or MO standards notwithstanding; how is it in the dogs' best interest to *require* them to live on this surface?

All the national animal organizations have devolved to the animal rights position; they are no longer interested in animal welfare, except as it serves the animal rights goals.

Animal rights organizations, are not in any way friendly to animals. The animal rights/vegan goal is to eliminate all animal products and animals from human lives. All ... food, clothing, companionship, exhibition, working animals. All.

I believe the intent of the law is to do something about the inhumane conditions found in Missouri puppy/kitten mills. Most are deplorable.

It was surprising to see the opposition to this bill, but I think it came mostly from the agriculture industry, afraid that the law would spread to cattle, horses, chickens, etc.

The responsible breeders ~ can they possibly have 50 animals (excluding litters) and be taking care of them well? Do hunters keep that many intact adults? Are they kept in places where they cannot turn around comfortably? Are they denied medical care when necessary? Are they denied refuge from the horrible cold winters and blazingly hot summers in Missouri? Are they fed less than they require?

I have a friend that adopted a former puppy-mill Italian Greyhound. In the beginning, the poor little thing was terrified of everything. Her paws are permanently deformed from spending 5 years in a cage with a wire floor. She has a tendency to skin problems and tumors. My friend has been very patient with her and, after about 3 years, the dog is finally asking for attention and loves to go for car rides.

I cannot imagine her life, pumping out litters and living 24/7 in a wire cage, before being rescued and finding a forever home with a loving human.

@ TheOldBroad - Sadly, what people believe doesn't change reality. For thirty years or more we've been seeing 'stop puppy mills' legislation, but the puppy mills seem to be growing, not shrinking. If people didn't believe that the laws that are proposed to 'stop puppy mills' would work, they wouldn't support them, would they?

But they aren't designed to stop puppy mills. They are written as tools to limit pet ownership and breeding as much as possible, because the ultimate goal is to make it impossible, for practical purposes, for people to own pets.

These laws are mostly written, and heavily sponsored by HSUS. HSUS is a vegan animal rights organization, and is not in any way friendly to animals. The vegan goal is to eliminate all animal products and animals from human lives. All ... food, clothing, companionship, exhibition, working animals. All.

To animal rights activists, animal ownership is animal abuse. It's that simple. To them, anyone who raises even one litter (or who even prefers to keep intact pets) is a puppy mill.

The reality is that the militant activists are less than 2% of the population. They believe that they own the moral high ground, because they don't 'exploit' animals. Their position is that to own animals is to enslave them, and it is immoral to do so.

Since they are not stupid, (just a little psychotic), they know perfectly well that they can't just stand up and say "we've got to eliminate all this animal slavery, not only killing animals for meat, but also stealing their milk, eggs and wool, and using them for any human purposes whatever". So they focus on the negative. They pretend the abuse rates are hundreds of percent above what they actually are, and claim they want to protect the animals.

Who could possibly object to that? But though the high volume commercial breeders continue to produce, unaffected by any of this, good conscientious people are losing their stock to these laws. A fresh dump in one of many kennel runs lost a breeder all her dogs. Another lost hers because some of her dogs had tartar on their teeth and two had *healed* wounds on their faces. A local horse owner lost his horses, even though they were under the care of a licensed vet, because he had a couple of old timers who could no longer be maintained in good flesh. Was he supposed to put them down because they had become thin? I've heard of several cases like that. These horses were under the care of a vet! This is happening on a daily basis now, but it is NOT hurting any commercial producers at all.

This law won't do anything at all to protect animals, it was designed expressly to further the animal rights agenda. Please don't continue to support legislation sponsored (and usually written) by HSUS.

@Hawthorne:

"But they aren't designed to stop puppy mills. They are written as tools to limit pet ownership and breeding as much as possible, because the ultimate goal is to make it impossible, for practical purposes, for people to own pets.

These laws are mostly written, and heavily sponsored by HSUS. HSUS is a vegan animal rights organization, and is not in any way friendly to animals. The vegan goal is to eliminate all animal products and animals from human lives. All ... food, clothing, companionship, exhibition, working animals. All.

To animal rights activists, animal ownership is animal abuse. It's that simple. To them, anyone who raises even one litter (or who even prefers to keep intact pets) is a puppy mill."

I'm certainly open to discussion on the subject, but could you please provide reliable source data for your statements? (Perhaps something on the HSUS website?) A couple of quotes from 17 years ago doesn't hold much weight with me.

Thanks!

Again, Hawthorn, could you provide some references corroborating your claims? You have claimed the law has requirements I cannot find, and now you're making claims of consequences with no support either.

my friend has a dog rescue in mississippi. most of the mill dogs they get are in deplorable condition. it is so very sad that people can treat anything like this. and yes the claws are usually curved under because they have been in cages for so long. they are covered in feces and matted so bad when they get them. why is this not outlawed ? these people should be completely put out of business. some dogs have been in cages so long they dont even lay down, they sleep sitting up. how very, very sad that we live in a world like this.

Neglect like that already IS outlawed. It's just there's nobody around enforcing it, and what enforcement there is generally has no teeth at all. A slap on the wrist at best, unless somebody's out to make an example out of the situation.

We don't need new laws. We need enforcement of general cruelty laws already on the books. And we need people to stop buying puppies in petstores and from online brokers so that the demand stops.

@ TheOldBroad - Why wouldn't a person owning 50 (or more) breeding dogs not treat them well? Most kennels like this are not under the care of a single person, and if there isn't enough family to cover the ground, they hire kennel help. What's wrong with this? If a shepherd can identify each individual sheep in his flock, which they can, (though, frankly, I find that a total mystery), why shouldn't a kennel owner be able to care for 50 or more dogs? Yes, it is not uncommon for breeders of hounds and sporting dogs to keep that many. Hounds are commonly hunted in packs.

And if the agricultural animal owners are 'afraid that the law would spread to cattle, horses, chickens, etc.', how does that justify it? I think that if that's the case, their fear is wholly justified. How can a law which simply regulates the number of animals in a person's care do anything to prevent abuse? Is it not possible to abuse one or two animals? This law has nothing whatever to do with preventing or even limiting abuse. That some people are incapable of caring for even one animal should NOT be an excuse to limit ownership for the rest.

Why wouldn't someone owning 50 (or more) breeding dogs not treat them well?

That's easy: money

It's curious that you defend puppy mills. Haven't you seen the pictures of the animals rescued from some of these facilities. Don't you wonder why these breeders don't want pictures taken? Don't you wonder why, if you purchase a puppy from one of these people, you meet them in a parking lot? I don't think it's because they have wonderfully cared-for dogs.

I'm with lindabcs:"Please don't confuse me for an AR supporter- I will take offense. I do not and have never supported HSUS or PETA and don't see myself doing so in the future."

@ TheOldBroad - How am I defending 'puppy mills'? You haven't said what you think the term means, unless you are prepared to convict all breeders who maintain more than a certain number of dogs as 'puppy mills'. The last dozen or so images I've seen of an AR confiscation at a kennel showed AR personnel carting well fed, well groomed dogs, apparently socialized enough to be carried out physically. In no way did they appear to be abused or neglected, though they had been living in kennels. There was also no reason to think they had been sold to people in parking lots.

One way or another, the kennels you describe as being in 'deplorable conditions' ARE already covered by existing abuse laws, and the way to deal with them is to report them, not to HSUS or ASPCA, but to the local authorities which have actual police powers. No AR organization has those, though in the last few years they have worked hard to make the general population think they do. If the conditions truly are 'deplorable', the authorities will act. If the kennel is licensed under t USDA, make your complaint to the USDA.

If the authorities inspect, and do not act, you need to consider that it's possible the facility does meet the requirements, and your concern is driven not by legitimate concerns, but by an emotional state induced by AR interests. Most people have never actually seen, in person, such conditions, and are working from pitiful images used by HSUS and ASPCA to garner sympathy and support for their draconian laws.

The breeders these laws generally put out of business are not 'puppy mills', except by the definition used by AR interests: if you breed even one litter, you are a puppy mill. If your definition is different, please offer it.

Hey everyone, don't forget to check the other blog, The Daily Vet. It's not set up to have automatic notifications yet... you'll need to click the tab at the top of the page.

Happy Holidays!

Thank you for the reminder ;o)

@ TheOldBroad & lindabcs - What sort of documentation would convince you?

Documents on HSUS' site is certainly not going to provide such evidence; they are committed to convincing the public that it is animal WELFARE that is driving them, and the only thing on their site which would support my position, if you looked at it critically, is the never ending lists of legislation they have supported which had NOT done what they claim it will. They modestly don't claim responsibility for having written those statutes, though the platoon of attorneys have no other possible function, except that and making sure their claims are less than actionable. Mostly they produce boilerplate which can be tailored to suit a particular jurisdiction, which also provides them with a degree of deniability. A win-win situation for them. Nonetheless, largely because of their claims, their fraudulent fundraising practises and their excessive lobbying practises, they are fighting several lawsuits at the moment, one of them being a RICO indictment. The most comprehensive documented evidence for all this can be found at http://humanewatch.org, a source which you will probably reject, despite the offered documentation, because they are a part of CCF. HSUS is employing outside counsel to fight these suits, probably because their salaried attorneys are too busy furthering their agenda to be freed up for the purpose.

I find it interesting that AR supporters refuse to accept Humane Watch's documentation, which is mostly a matter of public record, but accept uncritically everything that HSUS says. HSUS' most powerful tool is their willingness to engage in emotional blackmail, to wit, 'if you don't support us, you therefore support animal abuse'. However, since most of it is a matter of public record, you are free to run down the references yourself.

But the most convincing evidence, to me, is the result of their 'animal protection' legislation. If the legislation which they so strongly support is not fixing the problems they claim exist, what is it good for? Since they keep claiming over and over that there is a serious, ongoing problem with animal abuse of all sorts, why haven't their efforts had more effect?

Here is a link to an article written by a Colorado breeder, on the effects that their particular law is having, not on 'puppy mills', but on knowledgeable, conscientious breeders:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=478912124355

Perhaps one reason we can't communicate better is that our definitions aren't the same. What, exactly, constitutes a 'puppy mill' in your mind? Do you accept that it is possible to breed dogs without 'abusing' them? What, exactly, defines 'abuse' in your mind?

The whole premise of the AR position is that animals are continuously being abused, that the abuse problem is rampant. This seems very strange, in a country where the vast majority of the population are animal lovers, and over 75% of the population owns the most commonly owned pets - dogs, cats, birds, horses. This does not take into consideration agricultural animals, or 'exotics'. Animals are overwhelmingly loved in this culture, so where are the abusers?

At Pet.abuse.com http://tiny.cc/1szkq the highest percentage of abuse by state I could find was a little over 9%., and that was in FL where the definitions are broader than in most states; states with more AR laws find more abuse. FL, CA and NY were the leaders. MO was at 1.58%. Even so, the average over the country is under 2%. And this from a site which clearly is focused on animal abuse, and supportive of the 'need' for more animal law.

Now there are aspects here which are questionable. These stats are from 'recorded' cases, but it doesn't say whether they reflect recorded indictments or recorded convictions. Further, if a person can be *convicted* of animal abuse when his animals are under the care of a licensed vet, as has happened here locally, how seriously should they be taken, on the whole? You may wish to claim these low figures are the result of faulty enforcement, but if so, why not push for enforcement? If the existing laws are not being enforced, what reason do you have to believe that a new law will be any improvement? And, of course, pet-abuse also issues this disclaimer, which begins: "The information provided on the Pet-Abuse.Com website is provided as a public service and is intended to be used as reference material. The records available through Pet-Abuse.Com are not official records. Assessing the accuracy and reliability of information contained in the website is the user's responsibility."

Your ball. I'll see what else I can find, but the claims made by the AR activists are very hard to substantiate. It seems to be very much a matter of their continuous vociferous repetition of the terrible plight of animals. Why should we believe them?

Please don't confuse me for an AR supporter- I will take offense. I do not and have never supported HSUS or PETA and don't see myself doing so in the future.

What I asked for support on was your claim that the law, as written, requires concrete flooring (or by proxy, the dogs to be housed outdoors), toys to be sterilized, and some sort of documentation of the claims you've made that responsible breeders have lost their dogs over this. I would take a statement from said breeder or a news article, but would prefer the legal/police record of the incident as proof that this actually occurred.

Again, I think this law was completely unnecessary, and the problems and animal cruelty that currently occur would be solved if we actually enforced any of the laws already on the books, but neither do I think Prop B means the end of animal agriculture.

Sorry - it wasn't my comment which you are referring to, and seeing the other comment you wrote, no, you don't sound like an AR supporter. Hoperully, the other poster will sign in and offer the pertinent clause.

You often give little digs at animal rights advocates in your posts, as in this post. I know you do this because they give you a hard time for being a veterinarian sworn to help and not hurt animals while you kill them in your off time at home for food, even though there's an embarrassment of healthy, tasty food for which no animals are hurt or killed. So I know that in order to justify your own behavior to yourself, you must try to attack your critics. But you're off base again.

You claim in this post that undercover videos of farm animals being hurt beyond being slaughtered are of "questionable veracity." Such footage, sadly, is the norm. Please give an example of such "questionable" videos if you're going to make such a charge on a national platform.

Then you say that puppies should be treated like farm animals who you claim are treated with "respect for safety, comfort, and natural behaviors."

Here are some of the "standard operating procedures" that the USDA says it's OK to subject farm animals to and see how many you think are respectful and that you would tell a client it would be fine if their dog were treated this way:

* Dumped alive into trash containers to be smothered to death or thrown alive into wood chippers (male chicks)

* Confined in tiny boxes and forced to become anemic (male calves from dairy cows)

* Crowded 100,000 to a shed and forced to live in your own feces for months until you're slaughtered (cage-free chickens)

I could go on, but you get the picture. I spend much of my life helping farm animals who have been abandoned. Their lives, even on "humane" farms, are allowed to continue not for their own benefit but only if doing so profits their owners. And you want this to be the model for dogs? Again, sad.