# Let’s talk about the PUPS Act (and related legislation)



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

I have been a very vocal adversary of the thinking behind the “Stop the PUPS Act” thread. I seem to be alone in my point-of-view. 

I would like an open discussion about what people would see as “sensible” legislation at the local, state and federal level. 

We can all agree, I assume, that the status quo is shameful. There are thousands, upon thousands, of dogs that are being housed in an inhumane fashion to produce puppies in accordance with unfettered capitalism. I, personally, find it appalling that we, as a society, have really not done much to stop those abuses.

This thread is designed to hear all ideas to help mitigate against puppy mill abuses.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

To get things started, I will quote from my last post on the other thread:


I firmly believe that an education-only approach will not work.


I would like to see the following:
*1. Sensible local, state and federal regulation (that works in concert with each other).* Legislation to better regulate puppy mills is coming. In addition to federal efforts, the number of states that have introduced new legislation has grown substantially over the past few years. 

It’s too bad that reputable breeders have joined industry groups in fighting virtually all the proposed bills. I think we would have a better chance of reaching the goal of “sensible legislation” if reputable breeders joined with legislators and animal welfare groups to demand that animals not suffer at the hands of puppy millers in the pursuit of profit. 

I believe that if reputable breeders would join the conversation, it would be a great way to have their concerns heard, and addressed, in a productive fashion. I believe that, in so doing, reputable breeders could help educate lawmakers about what distinguishes bad breeders from good and that could go a long way in allaying their own fears of eventually becoming subject to future regulation.

Instead, I fear that reputable breeders are doing themselves a disservice by fighting legislation with misinformation and scare-tactics. It discredits them in the eyes of the very people (lawmakers) that they are afraid of… not to mention in the eyes of the non breed-fancier public.

*2. Better coordination and cooperation of local, state and federal agencies in carrying out mandated inspections and enforcing animal welfare laws.* 
Of course, remember, you can only enforce laws that are on the books. There are a number of states that do not even have felony animal cruelty laws (5 worst states to be an animal: Abuse laws lax - Health - Pet health | NBC News). Not to mention, many State “puppy mill” laws are woefully inadequate. So, better enforcement is not the only answer. That being said, IT IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PART of attaining a better future for the animals that are currently subject to puppy mill abuses.

*3. Awareness and education campaigns.* Gwen, I like your ideas on this. To be effective, these campaigns have to come from many different voices – not just the animal welfare groups. Having reputable breeders, the AKC, veterinarians, school children, working together with animal welfare groups on a common message would be great!

(btw: The AVMA does support the PUPS Act)

You know, it is interesting that perhaps this is the area where the current AWA has had the most impact.*** The AWA, in mandating inspections, has given the public a view into the conditions puppy mill animals are forced to live in. It is the inspection photos and reports that are being used by animal welfare groups to better educate the public.

***I think we all agree that enforcement of the AWA has been abysmal to date. Yes, the 2010 audit (that I provided a link to in an earlier post), is seeking to correct some of that. But, it remains a problem. The only good news is that awareness campaigns can also lead to better funding of APHIS/Animal Care inspectors.


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

illinoisfederationdogclubs&owners 

Look under position paper on PUPS. There are many good reasons to oppose the bill as it is currently.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Andaka said:


> illinoisfederationdogclubs&owners
> 
> Look under position paper on PUPS. There are many good reasons to oppose the bill as it is currently.


Hi Andaka,

Thank you for posting this. While I disagree with the conclusions they draw as to the impact of the PUPS Act, I do respect that they make a good faith effort in linking their concerns back to actual provisions in the PUPS Act.

If I were to critique this ‘position statement,’ I would say that they are a little free and loose in how they define “hobby” breeder. If a “hobby” breeder is someone who sells 50+ puppies a year, what term do we use for breeders that produce and sell far fewer puppies per year? Chris Wild acknowledged, in the other thread, that breeders who are selling 50+ puppies a year likely have kennel facilities separate from the house – something this position statement seems to go to great lengths to avoid stating.

In addition, I think they are interpreting some of the provisions in a way that is a bit of stretch. With that said, some of the speculation included in the position statement is good in that it does point to a few areas where the language in the proposed bill could be improved. 

As far as the co-ownership issue goes. I know they spend a lot of time talking about the impact this would have. I have to say that I think that could easily be handled by changing the language in co-ownership agreements. I think if responsible breeders sat down with a lawyer, they would find that a lawyer could very quickly draft an agreement that would take care of those concerns. I could be wrong on that.

I have to admit that I am surprised that they oppose the “exercise requirement” and summarize that objection by saying, “The need for the stated exercise requirements, intended for all AWA breeder licensees, is not scientifically proven.” 

*Okay with all of that said, it seems that this group, like Chris Wild, primarily object to the 50+ number in the definition of “high volume breeder.” What do you think would be a more appropriate definition? How can the PUPS Act better target problem breeders? 

If you were tasked with writing the definition, how would you write it?*


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think that animal cruelty, whether you have one pet, working or sport dogs, an animal rescue for dogs -- private or public, or a breeder of any size, should apply to all. 

On a federal level, I think that there could be laws that protect buyers of out of state puppies and dogs, to ensure that they receive an animal that has been certified by a veterinarian that the animal is in good health at the time of transport, laws that protect animals so that they are not transported over state lines cruelly. 

On a state level, I think that there should be laws about how a dog is transported to ensure that the environment of the dog is humane. And, at the state level there should be laws about animal cruelty and animal neglect. I think that there should be levels of animal cruelty/neglect: animal neglect being the least severe, misdemeaner and felony cruelty and aggravated animal cruelty which would be where you have people deliberately torturing animals, maiming them, starving them to death, etc.

I think it should not matter if you have one dog or 600 dogs. If you have 600 dogs suffering, than 600 can be siezed and you have 600 counts of felony animal cruetly, and that would be net you more time than the dude with a single dog he left behind so it starved to death. 

Animal cruelty is not only breeders, but rescuers, pet owners, exhibitors, shelters -- anyone who owns a dog. 

It sounds like we want to deal with the problem of pet over-population by cracking down on breeders who have poor conditions. I see this as two separate issues. If the poor conditions are causing suffering, then animal neglect/cruelty laws apply, and we should enforce those laws. 

I don't know if I like the idea of the government determining who should be allowed to breed their dogs. I think that those convicted of felony animal cruelty should not be able to own dogs and therefore, not breed dogs. And people who drop dogs at shelters should have some consequences, thought that would mean they would just kill the dogs, or dump them on the road somewhere. 

I like my idea of a lifetime license microchip, and if they find your dog roaming about, or if your dog is turned in, then you can be held accountable. 

Over-population should start with not allowing shelters to import puppies from other countries when they are low on puppies. Beyond that, I really think that there should be consequences for people who purchase or adopt a dog and keep the dog/puppy for a period of time beyond what is necessary to figure out whether the dog is a fit with your home, other animals, and then relinquish them to shelters. If getting a dog was a legal responsibility, with clear consequenses that are enforced, then maybe fewer people would buy puppies on impulse and dump them after the honeymoon is over. 

The numbers of puppies being produced is simple supply and demand. If the demand for puppies goes down, the numbers that breeders will breed will also go down.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

That was a great read, Daphne. Thank you for sharing. It touched on a few more big questions I hadn't even considered... like would a natural area be allowed for the exercise yard. That is a huge question that isn't answered.

What I really don't understand, and probably the thing I find most infuriating with these discussions, is those getting hung up on the number 50 and the underlying vibe being that a breeder who has 50 pups a year can't possibly be a good, responsible, etc... breeder. They must only be in it for the money. 

There is no number that separates the good from the bad. Many BYBs are horrible, but may not have 5 pups a year, much less 50. And there are many exceptional breeders who exceed that number. People with years, sometimes generations of the family, deeply involved in dogs. It's more than a hobby, it's their passion. Larger scale breeders producing excellent, healthy dogs, providing great customer support, whose dogs are very well cared for and housed, and who because of their larger operations have been able to have a huge positive impact on their chosen breed. The legislation that would provide just a few more hoops for puppy mills to jump through would put many long standing, wonderful breeders out of business. And that would be a travesty. Yes, some make a living breeding. Though most don't make a living solely on breeding but rather a combination of dog related activities such as competition, judging, training, boarding, grooming... But even if they did make a living on breeding, why is that inherently wrong? If their dogs are well cared for, they produce good solid dogs and help preserve their chosen breed while providing excellent examples of it to those who want one, who cares what their bank account looks like? People seem to assume that because the mills are horrible, that anyone who produces enough to be labeled a "high volume breeder" must be bad? I just don't understand this reasoning.... Or the need to apply a label to everything. Look at the breeder and their dogs, not the numbers.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Also, since I was paraphrased from the other thread where I said those producing 50 pups probably have some kennels, I'd like to clarify.

First, that of course doesn't apply to everyone as there are many situations, including co-owns, where someone could hit that magic number without needing kennels. But for sake of argument I'll agree that most probably do.

Most breeders I know with kennels don't have all of their dogs in those. Not even all of their breeding dogs. Some are in kennels, some are in the house. Often they are rotated between the two. Many who may keep older dogs in kennels still whelp and raise their pups in the house rather than in those kennels. Once they hit the magic number for the AWA to take effect, that would no longer be allowed. Now all of those breeding dogs, and pups, must go to the kennels because no home can be set up to meet the requirements of the AWA. It just isn't possible. 

Even in the rare situation of a breeder where all the dogs are kenneled, I know of many absolutely fabulous kennel set ups that as I said in the other thread are practically doggy palaces, which would not be AWA compliant. They provide nicer, safer housing for the dogs, but for one reason or another wouldn't be allowed. And in many cases to do everything required to make them compliant just wouldn't be feasible. Unless they were running a puppy mill sized operation, or were independently wealthy, they just wouldn't be able to afford to remodel their kennels to dot an i, or hire staff to cross a t.

So breeders who take exceptional care of their dogs and produce excellent dogs for their customers, doing a service to their breed, would be forced out by this legislation. How is that a good thing?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

As far as what to offer as an alternative, for the most part I agree with Sue. Enforce the animal cruelty laws already on the books, and if needed revise those. Laws that apply to EVERYONE who owns a dog, regardless of how many or what they do with those dogs. Not only would this be better for the dogs themselves, but it would also provide common ground for legislators and their constituents to come up with a workable plan because it would be something that most could not only identify with, but would potentially be impacted by. As it is, these things are being created, pushed through government, and supported by a populace that is in large part out of touch with the potential for problems because it doesn't affect them. It's easy for non breeders to point fingers at breeders and say what they should be doing... even though they don't know anything about breeding. It's quite a different thing when those fingers are pointing at themselves and most of the people they know who happen to own a dog.

The folks coming up with these laws and pushing for them would put a lot more thought into it if they themselves could be potentially affected. They would start thinking about "hey, I just spent a fortune on that new set up for my dog to be in when I'm at work during the day, but because of X in this bill it wouldn't be allowed..." instead of as it is now where it's only the smaller segment of the population that is impacted, and no one wants to listen to those concerns. The same applies to anyone reading them and trying to decide if it is a bill that they should support or not. General animal care laws that were applied across the board to everyone owning an animal would I'm sure be much more reasonable, and more well thought out, because of how far reaching the implications could be...and how close to home they could hit.

I do believe that much of the problem could be eliminated with a combination of good federal and state animal cruelty laws that are enforced and well designed education programs. If the buyers are educated, they won't buy from mills. If the cruelty laws are enforced, most of the puppy mill conditions that everyone is upset about would be taken care of. Between the two, mills would begin to disappear.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

LifeofRiley said:


> As far as the co-ownership issue goes. I know they spend a lot of time talking about the impact this would have. I have to say that I think that could easily be handled by changing the language in co-ownership agreements. I think if responsible breeders sat down with a lawyer, they would find that a lawyer could very quickly draft an agreement that would take care of those concerns. I could be wrong on that.


Due to the nature of co-owns, and the way that they are handled by registries like the AKC, there is really no way around it. Even if a creative lawyer could come up with a way around it, why should the breeders have to go to that trouble and expense? Especially with a system that is not only time proven to be great way to handle dog business relationships, and mentor new breeders, but which is also usually better for both the breeders and the dogs? 

Not to mention, wasn't it millers trying to come up with creative ways around the current laws (that whole no porous surfaces and we have to be able to sanitize it.. wire cages it is!!) that is part of the problem leading to the belief that more laws are needed? If the good breeders can find a lawyer to come up with a way around it, you can bet the millers will. They can afford the really creative lawyers. My guess is that if a way was found so co-owned pups didn't count against the breeder, suddenly every member of their family, their friends, their neighbors, co-own dogs with them an every single one now has no more than 49 pups a year and they could avoid AWA entirely.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Thanks to those that have offered up some ideas. 

I agree that animal cruelty laws are important. To be effective, I believe, the majority of the *state laws* would have to be revised to have more meaningful consequences and communities would have to work harder to demand that local authorities do a better job in following through with investigations and prosecutions – not an easy task, but not impossible and certainly something worth working toward.

The other piece that has been mentioned is that we should perhaps consider* federal anti-cruelty laws that apply to everyone*. While good in theory, in practice there are a couple of issues that pop to mind: 

1. It is not “technically” possible. Below, an excerpt from the ASPCA website:

“*Why isn’t it a federal (nationwide) crime to commit certain acts of cruelty that everyone agrees should be illegal, like torturing an animal to death or beating a pet all the time?*

_There is no federal cruelty law—and technically, there cannot be. Animal cruelty is dealt with on the state level because the United States Constitution limits the areas in which Congress can pass federal laws applicable nationwide (Article 1, Section 8), and instructs that everything else is up to individual states to handle.

The U.S. Congress’s broadest Constitutional power is over activities that impact or affect international and interstate commerce. The term “interstate commerce” has been very broadly interpreted by Congress and courts throughout the history of our country—allowing Congress to legislate issues that don’t appear, on the surface, to be related to commerce “among the states,” like certain civil rights laws in the 1960s.
Acts of animal cruelty typically occur in a fixed place, and probably cannot be interpreted to impact interstate commerce—not yet, anyway—so the federal government has no jurisdiction over them. Some exceptions to the rule are federal laws involving the transportation of animals across state lines, such as the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act.”_

2. Even if we were able to pass federal anti-cruelty laws and re-vamp state laws, I believe that they (alone) really can’t be the answer to preventing puppy mill abuses in the first place. *Anti-cruelty laws can only be applied after abuses have occurred.* The intent of the pre/post licensing inspections and minimum care standards set forth in the AWA (and PUPS) is to prevent abuse. 

I do not believe the current laws go far enough to actually accomplish that goal. One of the reasons why I like the PUPS Act is the addition of the "exercise requirement." I think that will greatly enhance the daily life of many of these animals that, as it stands today, can legally spend their entire life in a small enclosure.

3. Without some sort of inspection mandate on puppy mills, it would be very difficult to know what is going on behind closed doors. The leading source of animal cruelty tips is the public. Puppy millers often go to great lengths to keep the public away from areas where they house animals. 

Stopping puppy mills is more complicated than it appears at the outset. My first instinct, several years ago, was to say, BAN PUPPY MILLS. But, that would probably only result in worse abuses on the black market. So, not the best solution either. Ughh. 

Anyway, would love to hear more ideas/thoughts.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Tracking Breeders of Pet Store Puppies speakingforspot.com


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> As it is, these things are being created, pushed through government, and supported by a populace that is in large part out of touch with the potential for problems because it doesn't affect them. *It's easy for non breeders to point fingers at breeders and say what they should be doing... even though they don't know anything about breeding.* It's quite a different thing when those fingers are pointing at themselves and most of the people they know who happen to own a dog.


I disagree with the notion that dog owners, veterinarians, APHIS/Animal Care inspectors and animal welfare groups cannot have a valid perspective on the PUPS Act (or any legislation intended to curb puppy mill abuses) just because they are not breeders.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

onyx'girl said:


> Tracking Breeders of Pet Store Puppies speakingforspot.com


This is a good tool! The USDA is in an interesting Catch 22. It is a large organization with multiple divisions. In one division (food), they are a consumer assurance for quality and yet in the Animal Welfare division the USDA label is a guarantee that the breeder in question is a puppy mill. 

The fact of the matter is that the USDA, as it stands today, only has jurisdiction over those breeders that sell to pet stores. I think they should re-brand the certification to reduce consumer confusion.

I have also thought that it would be interesting if they did something like what California did with restaurant inspections. The inspectors assigned a "grade" to the facility and the legislation demanded that they post that "grade" on their storefront. I, for one, tended to take a second look if the grade was a "C" or below. Anyone from California have additional perspective on that?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

LifeofRiley said:


> I disagree with the notion that dog owners, veterinarians, APHIS/Animal Care inspectors and animal welfare groups cannot have a valid perspective on the PUPS Act (or any legislation intended to curb puppy mill abuses) just because they are not breeders.


Everyone can have an opinion. How valid that opinion is depends in large part upon the base of knowledge upon which the opinion is made. Which in a whole lot of cases is practically nil.

Most of what else I would say about most of the comments made this thread would take this too far into the realm of general politics, since when discussing legislation on that level it is difficult to keep it strictly dog related as the board rules require. 

The other thing I would throw out there for people to consider is WHY is this a problem in the US, and not elsewhere? Why doesn't Europe for example have puppy mills? Yes, some of it is government legislation but most of that in the form of general cruelty laws rather than anything aimed specifically at breeders. And a whole lot of it is a more educated general dog buying public. 

Most people want to do the right thing. And that certainly applies to those purchasing dogs. They don't want to support a bad breeder and if they know that puppy mills exist they certainly don't want to support those. But they don't know any better. Educate them, and the market would disappear and then so would the suppliers. Historically, educating the populace has done much more to further change for the good than bureaucrats making more and more and more laws trying to legislate morality.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> *What I really don't understand, and probably the thing I find most infuriating with these discussions, is those getting hung up on the number 50 and the underlying vibe being that a breeder who has 50 pups a year can't possibly be a good, responsible, etc... breeder. They must only be in it for the money. *
> 
> There is no number that separates the good from the bad. *Many BYBs are horrible, but may not have 5 pups a year, much less 50.* And there are many exceptional breeders who exceed that number. People with years, sometimes generations of the family, deeply involved in dogs. *It's more than a hobby, it's their passion.* Larger scale breeders producing excellent, healthy dogs, providing great customer support, whose dogs are very well cared for and housed, and who because of their larger operations have been able to have a huge positive impact on their chosen breed. The legislation that would provide just a few more hoops for puppy mills to jump through would put many long standing, wonderful breeders out of business. And that would be a travesty. Yes, some make a living breeding. Though most don't make a living solely on breeding but rather a combination of dog related activities such as competition, judging, training, boarding, grooming... But even if they did make a living on breeding, why is that inherently wrong? If their dogs are well cared for, they produce good solid dogs and help preserve their chosen breed while providing excellent examples of it to those who want one, who cares what their bank account looks like? *People seem to assume that because the mills are horrible, that anyone who produces enough to be labeled a "high volume breeder" must be bad? I just don't understand this reasoning.... *Or the need to apply a label to everything. Look at the breeder and their dogs, not the numbers.


Based on all accounts here, you are an excellent breeder. By extension, I assume, that the peers/friends that you are defending are also good breeders. But, what percentage of “high volume” breeders do you really think are good breeders? Look at the estimated numbers of breeders who would become subject to the PUPS Act. Do you really think they are all like your friends? I highly doubt it. *Help legislators better distinguish between the different types of “high volume” breeders versus simply saying that numbers don’t tell the story.* You are the type of breeder they want to hear from. Do not rely on the inflammatory form letters that the other thread provided.

I believe that 50+ pups per year is "high volume." It is a business, not a hobby! I do not believe that a number, in and of itself, should mean those breeders are classified as puppy millers. 

But, if it is true, as you claim, that the 'breed' is the passion of these breeders, they should be more outraged than I am at the practices of puppy mills. They should be leading the charge to stop it! I guess that is my problem... I just don't understand how one can love a breed and oppose every effort to stop practices that are contributing to undermining it. That is what I find *infuriating!*

(btw: yes, I agree, BYBers "that may not have 5 pups per year" are a big problem. I just don't see how we can regulate them at the federal level. Puppy millers are a different story)


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> Everyone can have an opinion. How valid that opinion is depends in large part upon the base of knowledge upon which the opinion is made. Which in a whole lot of cases is practically nil.


@Chris Wild... we posted at the same exact time.

Re: your more recent post. I would argue that the base of knowledge you, as a reputable breeder, have of puppy mill operations is far less than those who have been inspecting them and investigating them *for years*.

In fact, I would argue that this is why you seem unable to view this proposed legislation through any other lens than that of a "responsible breeder." 

We all know that the target of the PUPS Act is NOT responsible breeders. You may have legitimate problems with it, but why not address those in a more productive fashion... why reject the PUPS Act in its entirety?


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Because it "isn't targeted at responsible breeders" doesn't mean those breeder will be affected by the unnecessary legislation. 
As Chris posted, educating JQP is what will make the difference, not more legislation, it is that simple.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

LifeofRiley said:


> @Chris Wild... we posted at the same exact time.
> 
> Re: your more recent post. I would argue that the base of knowledge you, as a reputable breeder, have of puppy mill operations is far less than those who have been inspecting them and investigating them *for years*.
> 
> In fact, I would argue that this is why you seem unable to view this proposed legislation through any other lens than that of a "responsible breeder."


I'm quite sure I don't know as much about mills as inspectors visiting them. But I probably do know more about animal husbandry and breeding. 

And since I can, and have, looked at the same puppy mill photos as you and everyone else who sits on the sidelines choosing to be for or against the act, I'm about equally qualified as anyone short of those inspectors to pass judgement on it's effectiveness, and much more qualified than most of those looking at the photos to see the dangers for good breeders and how some of the regulations are absolutely pointless and do nothing to help the dogs. If anything they work against helping the dogs by cluttering up the system with ridiculous small violations rather than focusing on the big offenders.

I went through the site Jane posted and was horrified at the photos. But much of my horror wasn't due to the conditions, but due to the things that triggered a violation: 
Pallets of dog food stacked against a wall where everything "couldn't be cleaned properly". I'd never stack feed out of the way near a wall. How silly! They're so much more convenient in the middle of the aisle where everyone can trip over them.
An expired medication. I've probably got one of those in our dog cabinet... and probably more than a few in my own medicine cabinet. Which is why we always check to see if we need to reorder anything before having a litter because I don't make it a habit to regularly go through the dog's medicine cabinet, much less my own, and look at labels and throw out old stuff.
Some empty vaccine vials and syringes lying on a table. Yup, my puppy room counter would look the same if someone stopped by as we finished giving shots. So what?
A dog with a collar and tag that wasn't on the manifest. Guess we're supposed to update our file cabinets and computer programs everytime we dog sit for a friend.
A wooden post in a kennel.
Some non dog related tools stacked in a corner of the building that also happened to house (a very nice looking by the way) whelping kennel.
Straw bedding in a dog house. Not sure what is wrong with that, but it's apparently a voilation.

Does nitpicking those sorts of things really help anyone? There is more than enough in the AWA already as it stands to really crack down on puppy mills and force them to either improve conditions or go out of business. Yet there is either a lack of funding or lack of desire to focus on the real issues that the AWA already gives these inspectors the power to work against. 



LifeofRiley said:


> We all know that the target of the PUPS Act is NOT responsible breeders. You may have legitimate problems with it, but why not address those in a more productive fashion... why reject the PUPS Act in its entirety?


You say it isn't to target responsible breeders. Many feel differently, that it is intended to target all breeders indescriminately. As far as why do I oppose it, as I said in the other thread my objection is the adding the "high volume breeder" language and definition. If it were just about an exercise area, and otherwise nothing changed with regard to who it would apply too (IOW, only those already subject to AWA) then I wouldn't care. That's certainly more reasonable, and also will do much more actual good for the dogs, than writing up citations about where a breeder hangs the mops and brooms.

My objection to reducing the number to 50 pups isn't just because it's getting to a low enough number to impact good breeders. It's also because of the large number of breeders that it would add. The true puppy mills that are real problems are producing far more than that. Add an extra 0 to make it 500 pups a year and that is more accurate. Yet APHIS is already (supposedly) so understaffed and underfunded that it can't do anything about the huge operations that are serious, repeat offenders. So stretching things even more thin, adding thousands of breeders that are essentially small potatoes, isn't going to help anything. Least of all the dogs.

As far as "why reject it in it's entirety?", well, because that's how legislation works. It's all or nothing. The bill passes, as written, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, maybe it gets revised and submitted again. But there is no way to say yes to one part and no to another. It doesn't work that way. This is of course intentional and is how a lot of stuff, often completely unrelated stuff, gets passed into legislation by being a little blurb written into a larger bill. PUPS is no different.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

One thing I'd like to see that I think could help, is more involvement from AKC. People already think AKC papers mean quality, and AKC certainly encourages that belief. I think if they did more to make that true, a lot could be accomplished. While they're just intended to be a registry, they've already set themselves up as much more than that both in lobbying for and against all sorts of dog related legislation and in having an army of inspectors who visit breeders and will pull the breeder's ability to register pups with AKC if there are violations. So they've already set themselves up as somewhat responsible for being part of the solution.

While I don't know for sure, I would wager those inspectors are more knowledgeable and involved in dogs that those serving USDA. And AKC is a much more knowledgeable organization about how to judge a breeder and they have interests on both sides... combating puppy mills while preserving good breeding. And the public already has a strong opinion of the value of AKC papers.

Up the pro-AKC propaganda machine so that the dog buying public wants those papers... not papers from the fake registries that the puppy mills use. Then make those papers mean a lot more by ensuring some standards in terms of care are met by hiring more inspectors as currently there aren't near enough so that they can hit enough of the kennels producing high numbers of puppies. 

I'd feel a lot more comfortable with a serious dog organization like AKC policing it's own than with the government, and am sure most other dog breeders and fanciers would agree.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

fwiw, my opinion on the necessity of this type of legislation has done an almost complete 180 since I started learning more about the world of purebreds.

I don't think that enforcing existing animal cruelty laws is a complete answer just because that is a patchwork of state laws, they're often surprisingly weak (I had an animal cruelty question pop up at work a couple of months ago and there was literally nothing the owner could do, because in PA it is not "animal cruelty" for somebody to come up and beat your dog with a stick right in front of you for no reason, unless they cripple or kill your dog) and they are often selectively enforced. And if it's going to be federal, it has to be tied to commerce in some way to justify the regulation.

But as far as this specific proposal goes, eh.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

LifeofRiley said:


> I have also thought that it would be interesting if they did something like what California did with restaurant inspections. The inspectors assigned a "grade" to the facility and the legislation demanded that they post that "grade" on their storefront. I, for one, tended to take a second look if the grade was a "C" or below. Anyone from California have additional perspective on that?


Tying this into the suggestion about the AKC -- isn't this what the AKC "Breeder of Merit" stamp is, or at least what it's supposed to be? I confess that I'm fuzzy as to the exact requirements to qualify, but it seems to be at least headed that way.

I don't know that the USDA is the right organization to be doing it because their focus is primarily on sanitation and livestock health. Places like Kimbertal would easily pass, because they are clean and well-lit and very much open to inspection. They don't have filthy cages crammed with filthy dogs; their kennels look almost as clean as hospital wards.

But I sure wouldn't want a dog from there.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

LifeofRiley said:


> But, if it is true, as you claim, that the 'breed' is the passion of these breeders, they should be more outraged than I am at the practices of puppy mills. They should be leading the charge to stop it! I guess that is my problem... I just don't understand how one can love a breed and oppose every effort to stop practices that are contributing to undermining it. That is what I find *infuriating!*


You're not involved in the dog world are you? By that I mean an active member of a club, training, showing/titling and such, spending much of your free time surrounded by serious dog people. I'm going to guess the answer is "no" because you don't seem to have a good grasp on the dog world that breeders and fanciers live in.

For starters, you wouldn't question the passion. Not for a moment. You might question the sanity, but never the passion.

You'd also realize that dog breeders and fanciers do a LOT to combat puppy mills. Both from the angle of educating the dog buying public, and in the sense of trying to work with legislators both individually and collectively. There are many groups, such as the one Daphne posted the link to, where we are able to get strength in numbers, and there are the large lobbying arms of the AKC and other legitimate registries and sport organization as well. Unfortunately, much of the attempts to work with legislators accomplish little. Rarely do they truly care to listen. They're generally far more concerned with getting brownie points for "striking a blow against puppy mills" than they are with the true consequences, or effectiveness, of the legislation. And partly this problem is the very nature of legislation seeks to find a "one size fits all" answer, and there really isn't one with dogs.

You would have no doubt that dog breeders and fanciers feel very strongly against things like puppy mills. Partly of course because we love dogs and hate to see them living in squalor and treated like commodities. Same as any other dog lover. But we have more reasons to hate them than the average dog lover and internet forum poster as well. Being involved in dogs as we are, we are often on the front lines as people who are constantly dealing with the mess produced by these puppy mills. The average person may hear one horror story of the health or temperament problems of these dogs every now and then. The average trainer running a simple puppy class probably has to deal with at least a couple of them personally every session. And we hate them because they are the rotten apple in the barrel that in the minds of an increasing number of people makes all breeders "bad", and that fuel legislation like this that can have a serious negative impact on us and the breeds that we love. We probably DO hate them more than you. But that doesn't mean we're going to blindly support something that may have an effect on them when we know there are serious consequences for all of us, or hold hands and have a sing-a-long with organizations that would prefer to get rid of all breeders.

But as far as "leading the charge" I'd be genuinely interested in how you would see that happening? None of us have hundreds and thousands of people sending us money every month to pay our millionaire lawyers and lobbyists and CEOs. There are far fewer of us, and we're all "dog poor", and busy working our jobs so we don't become dirt poor, and I don't think a "save the purebred dogs" campaign would garner the donations of "save the whales" so we're likely to remain that way.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

As always, Chris, excellent posts that are well written, articulate and that express my exact feelings. Thank you.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> *You're not involved in the dog world are you? By that I mean an active member of a club, training, showing/titling and such, spending much of your free time surrounded by serious dog people.* I'm going to guess the answer is "no" because you don't seem to have a good grasp on the dog world that breeders and fanciers live in.
> 
> *Being involved in dogs as we are, we are often on the front lines as people who are constantly dealing with the mess produced by these puppy mills*.


Wow, I didn’t realize the “dog world” was so narrowly defined. I guess I must inhabit a different dog world. 

Since you asked about my experience, I will tell you. 

I have been actively involved in all-breed rescue for years. Many of the people in my social circle are even more deeply involved in all-breed rescue than I am. I have personally seen the condition of puppy mill dogs that enter into shelters and rescues… it is heartbreaking! I have dedicated countless weekends to volunteer efforts for multiple shelters in my area and I have opened my home to many foster dogs.

It is worth noting that there are reputable breeders in my “dog world” too. Believe it or not, not all breeders share your opposition to legislation of this type. In addition to breeders, I know a lot of people actively training and titling their shelter dogs… but I guess they are not serious dog people either. Really?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

I didn't mean it as an insult. Sorry you took it that way. I do think that those who's primary experience is rescue, or people who are working with training shelter dogs, is going to be very different from those seriously involved in purebred dogs and usually very focused on the state of their chosen breed. That isn't to say one is better than the other but they are different and are going to provide different perspectives. And it seems from your posts that your perspective based on your experience has led you to some opinions on those in the purebred dog world that are quite different from reality.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Some more thoughts on the bill. Also many articles on the site outlining it's history and previous bills.

HR 847 Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS) 2013


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> *As far as "why reject it in it's entirety?", well, because that's how legislation works. It's all or nothing.* The bill passes, as written, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, maybe it gets revised and submitted again. But there is no way to say yes to one part and no to another. It doesn't work that way. This is of course intentional and is how a lot of stuff, often completely unrelated stuff, gets passed into legislation by being a little blurb written into a larger bill. PUPS is no different.


Actually, I believe, the PUPS Act is currently in subcommittee. *This is usually where the real work begins*. Activities at this stage include - reviewing comments of support and opposition, gathering expert opinions, marking up the bill with revisions and additions, voting on the mark-ups, etc. All of this happens before the bill is sent back to the full House or Senate for a vote. 

So, if you support the "exercise requirement" part of this bill, there is every reason for you to mention that… *it is not “all or nothing” at this stage*.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> *I didn't mean it as an insult.* Sorry you took it that way. I do think that those who's primary experience is rescue, or people who are working with training shelter dogs, is going to be very different from those seriously involved in purebred dogs and usually very focused on the state of their chosen breed. *That isn't to say one is better than the other but they are different and are going to provide different perspectives.* And it seems from your posts that your perspective based on your experience has led you to some opinions on those in the purebred dog world that are quite different from reality.


I did not take your post as an insult  It is clear that we are coming at this from a different perspective. I am glad you acknowledge that one is not better than the other.

I must admit that when I first posted on the “Stop the PUPS Act” thread I did not realize how big a divide there was between my point-of-view and that of the breeders and posters on this forum. 

These threads have been an eye-opener for me in that regard. I know very few people in real life that share the attitudes expressed here – especially my friends that are very deeply engaged in rescue and advocacy. So, it has been interesting. I would have thought that reputable breeders and rescuers would share a lot of the same goals. 

But, I enjoy a good debate. And, I appreciate that you have taken part in the discussion. 

In the other thread, I tried very hard to point out fact from fiction in the PUPS Act. I don’t want to do a line-item rebuttal of the article in the last link you posted because I covered many of the same misconceptions in the other thread. But, I will say that they do a decent job summarizing the OIG Audit and outcomes. But, when they transition to talking about the PUPS Act itself they are simply not telling the truth on several points. 

My goal with this thread was to engage in a dialogue on a solution we could all agree on. I wanted to hear what reputable breeders feel are good solutions. I have been trying to better understand your perspective. I thought we might be able to find a common ground.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

LifeofRiley said:


> These threads have been an eye-opener for me in that regard. I know very few people in real life that share the attitudes expressed here – especially my friends that are very deeply engaged in rescue and advocacy. So, it has been interesting. I would have thought that reputable breeders and rescuers would share a lot of the same goals.


I think we share most of the same goals, but differ perhaps in what we are willing to sacrifice to accomplish them.

For those who's primary experience is on the rescue/shelter side, especially if from an all breed/all dog perspective, I think it natural and understandable that there will be support for anything that might help with the problem.

For breed fanciers and breeders, we want to fix the problem too. But we also are very passionate about preservation of the breed. That is what I meant by my "dog world" comment. I should have specified the world of serious purebred, even specific breeds, rather than dogs in general. Because there is a difference between those two "dog worlds".

And unfortunately those two goals are often at odds because what might help curb the problem very often, intentional or not, also severely threatens the ability to preserve the breeds and that's not a compromise many are willing to make.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> I think we share most of the same goals, but differ perhaps in what we are willing to sacrifice to accomplish them.
> 
> For those who's primary experience is on the rescue/shelter side, especially if from an all breed/all dog perspective, I think it natural and understandable that there will be support for anything that might help with the problem.
> 
> ...


Nice post! I agree that we share many of the same goals. 

But, I will agree to disagree with you on the idea that the PUPS Act poses a serious threat to the preservation of the breed. It is not uncommon for people in any given field to make doomsday predictions over any proposed legislative changes…. 9 times out of 10 those predictions turn out to be unfounded.

I must say that, given your personal passion for dogs and the breed (which I do not question), it must be a bitter pill to swallow knowing that in opposing this legislation, and most other legislative efforts (an _assumption_ I am making based on some of your other posts), you are actually helping puppy millers maintain the status quo.

I think that is the problem the people in my “dog world" have with your “dog world.” You oppose legislation but don’t offer up any alternative legislative solutions. As I said earlier, this legislation is coming. I, for one, would like for breeders like you to be part of shaping what that legislation looks like because *I do respect your experience and expertise*.

Fwiw: I would not hesitate referring someone looking for a purebred GSD puppy to you. I think you epitomize what breeding should be in this country. It is just too bad that more breeders aren’t like you


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

I really would like to hear more ideas about how to solve the puppy mill problem!

I think some of the AKC suggestions on this thread have been interesting. 

One thing I thought about was - what if reputable breeders joined together to boycott the AKC until they made substantive changes in their practices designed to crack down on puppy mills.

I actually think that it was a puppy miller boycott a while back that caused them to become more lenient in the first place. But, I am not sure about that.

Any other builds?


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

AKC should not be the police of dog breeding, it is just a registry that makes $ any way they can. 
THE only way millers will be extinguished is if JQP will learn not to support them. Plain and simple~yet not, because JQP keeps reproducing the mentality!


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

onyx'girl said:


> Plain and simple~yet not, because JQP keeps reproducing the mentality!


Totally agree with this statement! It is really frustrating!


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

It is and it isn't. Frustrating, I mean.

I guess the good thing about it (and I'm inclined to try to find good things where I can!) is that it means each of us can do something to push back, instead of having to wait for some big hard-to-move group to do it for us. Talk to people. Educate them. Do it in real life, do it on the forum, do it on Facebook or wherever else you're active.

It feels Sisyphean sometimes because there's always somebody coming along asking the same question that's been asked many times before, and you feel like you're repeating yourself into infinity (well, at least _I_ do)... but even if you've said the same thing a million times already, it's the first time that person has heard it.

Most people, at least in my little corner of the world, know that puppy mills are bad, and that you shouldn't buy a puppy from a pet store. There's an emerging awareness that BYBs aren't so great either, although that line -- as we all know -- can get a little fuzzy. So the tide _is_ turning. I take that as a hopeful sign. Just gotta keep doing our part.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Now there's a word you don't run across very often!!

Sisyphean....

You make a really good point, patience, patience, patience and persistence it's something in short supply of these days.

That's why I like to refer to the anti-cigarette campaigns. It took many years of persistent messaging, changing a socially accepted norm and now it's made a big difference!






Merciel said:


> It is and it isn't. Frustrating, I mean.
> 
> I guess the good thing about it (and I'm inclined to try to find good things where I can!) is that it means each of us can do something to push back, instead of having to wait for some big hard-to-move group to do it for us. Talk to people. Educate them. Do it in real life, do it on the forum, do it on Facebook or wherever else you're active.
> 
> ...


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Hi Gwen,

Nice to see you post on this thread!

I have to ask, do you really think it was the education campaigns alone that brought us to where we are today in this country with regard to smoking? 

In order for this thread not to be closed, due to the rules on political conversations, I hope that you will refer back to my response on this in the other thread and make your reply salient to the legislation in question .


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

onyx'girl said:


> AKC should not be the police of dog breeding, it is just a registry that makes $ any way they can.


There is no doubt in my mind that the AKC's pursuit of $$$ has led them astray from their original mission. I do not, for one second, want them to be the regulatory authority over puppy mills.

But, to say they are simply a "registry" is *not true*. They have a powerful lobbying arm that has not been helpful at all in crafting better solutions to solve the puppy mill problem. 

It is too bad that their lack of initiative on that front has also led to them doing an *awfu*l job in helping reputable breeders distinguish themselves from the puppy miller and BYBers of the world. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I misused the word "should" for "is".
AKC "IS" a registry. AKC "is" also in it for profit. AKC will turn a blind eye yet do commercial kennel inspections supposedly.
So as far as 'policing' the commercial kennels AKC makes $ off registering, AKC is NOT the police. If it were, the bar should be set fairly high, and the millers wouldn't be able to continue affiliating with them. 
HSUS has power and is using that to get these bills on the dockets for more laws. WE DON'T NEED MORE LAWS! If you are on fb, like this page, you'll see that the laws that are in place now aren't being enforced. Anything that is going to be more controlling to a small hobby breeder is detrimental. The USDA needs to rethink what they currently have, not make more confusing wording. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Iowa-Animal-Welfare-Alliance/342314819129629?fref=ts


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

LifeofRiley said:


> I have to ask, do you really think it was the education campaigns alone that brought us to where we are today in this country with regard to smoking?


Smoking's a very different beast. The analogy is useful in some regards, less so in others -- and the need for regulatory intervention was a lot clearer, as cigarettes are physically addicting, were being marketed to kids and teenagers in some really insidious ways, and had a clear-cut health impact.

Education _did_ make a difference there, though, as did cultural changes and shifts in social norms.

I think a better comparison is to changing views on shelter dogs. Last night I started reading John Homans's book "What's a Dog For?" One of the points he makes in the book is that in 1970, _70 million_ animals were euthanized in the American shelter system. Dogs -- including his own household pet -- were routinely allowed to roam around freely, had multiple litters of mixed-breed puppies (his childhood dog had several such litters), and no one ever thought of adopting a dog from a shelter because your neighbor probably had a "Free Puppies" sign out in his or her yard.

That picture has changed drastically in many parts of the country, particularly along the coasts. The annual euthanasia number is now maybe 10% of what it was 40 years ago. There is such a shortage of adoptable pets in some areas that dogs and puppies are brought from other regions to fill the demand, and quite a few communities have been able to go effectively no-kill.

Of course this causes numerous other issues, which the book goes into (and it's an interesting read, whether or not you agree with all the author's conclusions), but the point for this discussion is that the change in the shelter situation _was_ mostly due to grassroots education and persuasion, and it _worked_. It worked almost too well, as evidenced by the very existence of this thread.

So it can be done. We just need to keep doing it.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

onyx'girl said:


> WE DON'T NEED MORE LAWS! If you are on fb, like this page, you'll see that the laws that are in place now aren't being enforced. Anything that is going to be more controlling to a small hobby breeder is detrimental. The USDA needs to rethink what they currently have, not make more confusing wording. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Iowa-Animal-Welfare-Alliance/342314819129629?fref=ts


Hi onyx'girl, thanks for the link. Great site!

To me, *this site proves my point* about the value of inspections and the importance of the 2010 USDA policy to issue press releases designed to inform the public of puppy millers who are in violation of the AWA. 

If it were not for the AWA, we would not have a searchable database of inspection reports available for the public to review.

If it were not for the public demanding that the USDA/Animal Welfare do a better job enforcing the laws, we would not have the 2010 decision by the USDA/Animal Welfare to issue press releases including photos and inspection reports of AWA violators. 

*And, without this information, it would be hard for animal welfare groups to “educate” the public because they wouldn’t know what was really going on behind closed doors. This site is a good example of how they are putting the information gathered as part of the inspection process to good use. *

(btw: It is notable that the AKC does not release any information to the public regarding its inspections… hmmmm.)

I think the USDA/Animal Welfare division was probably also hoping that this information would lead to greater public support of funding its inspection programs. Oh well, that doesn’t seem to have worked out too well for them – at least not by the views prevalent on this forum.

Beyond the AWA, as it stands now, this site does a great job illustrating the need to close the loophole on Internet-only puppy millers – which is what the PUPS Act is trying to do. If you look closely at the ads they post, you may notice that many sell direct to the public via the Internet. So, as it stands, there is no inspection and no oversight of those puppy millers.... can't blame the USDA for something they have no jurisdiction over.

I have stated several times, across both threads, that the enforcement of the AWA has been a problem. It is improving, but it still has a long way to go! I, for one, would like to see people demanding better enforcement and funding.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Merciel said:


> Smoking's a very different beast. The analogy is useful in some regards, less so in others -- and the need for regulatory intervention was a lot clearer, as cigarettes are physically addicting, were being marketed to kids and teenagers in some really insidious ways, and had a clear-cut health impact.
> 
> Education _did_ make a difference there, though, as did cultural changes and shifts in social norms.
> 
> ...


I’ll check out the book, thanks! I agree that smoking involved a combination of regulation and education. The fact that regulations were a big factor does not negate the important role education campaigns played in bringing us to where we are today - so, I think we are on the same page with that.

And, yes, we have seen progress in adoption rates and reduction in national euthanasia numbers (albeit that picture can look profoundly different at a state-to-state,region-to-region, township-to-township level).

I am a strong proponent of education and believe it is the most important component of achieving the goal of one day putting puppy mills out of business. But, I do not see that end-goal anywhere in the near future. So, I support legislation designed to *protect animals* from what I see as abusive practices.

*The goal of “animal welfare” laws is to protect animals from unnecessary suffering and harm. * This is distinct, as you noted, from separate efforts to reduce the over-population problem. 

I think the current AWA and PUPS Act do not go far enough in reaching the Animal Welfare goal - and they are not at all designed to address the overpopulation probem - *but they are a start!* In fact, I would like them to have more of the *universal reach* suggested by Chris Wild and Selzer. But, the likelihood of that happening in any kind of timely fashion (at this stage of the public’s education process) is slim to none.


Here is an interesting read for you, Animal Legal & Historical Center - Michigan State University College of Law

I thought the below excerpt is pertinent to this discussion:
_There are two ways in which companion animals gain greater legal status. First, when animals are generally granted a legal status greater than property through legislation. Second, when companion animals are given their protection through laws created primarily for their protection. Germany leads the way with an expressed duty to protect animals premising their animal legislation.

Germany has signed and ratified the Companion Animal Convention mentioned above, therefore Germans are subject to the confines of that treaty. The German Animal Welfare Act 14 is premised on the responsibility of human beings for their fellow creatures to protect the lives and well-being of animals. This provision is an enormous step in the right direction. The existence of this "responsibility" premise illustrates that animals are not seen as merely property in Germany, but as fellow creatures deserving protection from unnecessary harm. It conveys an expressed duty on human beings to protect animals. In the other legislation, this duty is implied through the mandate to promote animal welfare. Here, Germany is specifically stating the responsibility, enforcing the idea that humans are stewards rather than dominators. 

The United States only covers the treatment of companion animals through state anti-cruelty statutes and possible civil suits. Additionally, with the exception of few states, anti-cruelty laws exist mainly for the benefit of the owner, not the animal itself. Civil suits are entirely for the benefit of the owner of an animal. This changes when laws are premised with clauses that confer a desire to protect the life of an animal for the animal's sake. Animals are no longer seen as just property, the harm no longer being just to the owner of the animal. *The most significant difference between the laws in Europe and the laws in the United States is the desire to protect an animal for the sake of the animal.*_


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

No. 





LifeofRiley said:


> Hi Gwen,
> 
> Nice to see you post on this thread!
> 
> ...


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

LifeofRiley said:


> I’ll check out the book, thanks!


I hope you do, although I'll admit my hope is purely selfish. 

I finished it last night and oh my goodness there is SO MUCH I'd like to chew over with other dog people. As it turns out, the last couple of chapters are particularly germane to this discussion, but there's loads and loads of interesting stuff piled in before that.

It's pure pop history, for good and maybe not-so-good (only in the sense that I wanted to know a lot! more! about so much stuff that just kinda gets glossed over), but I think overall it's pretty even-handed (at least on the topics I know enough about to tell) and, like I said, so much discussion fodder I'd just really love to dig into with dog people. I don't think my normal friends would be all that into it, sadly.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Merciel said:


> I hope you do, although I'll admit my hope is purely selfish.
> 
> I finished it last night and oh my goodness there is SO MUCH I'd like to chew over with other dog people. As it turns out, the last couple of chapters are particularly germane to this discussion, but there's loads and loads of interesting stuff piled in before that.
> 
> It's pure pop history, for good and maybe not-so-good (only in the sense that I wanted to know a lot! more! about so much stuff that just kinda gets glossed over), but I think overall it's pretty even-handed (at least on the topics I know enough about to tell) and, like I said, so much discussion fodder I'd just really love to dig into with dog people. I don't think my normal friends would be all that into it, sadly.


Hi Merciel,

I am about half way through the book, I plan on finishing it this weekend. I look forward to discussing it with you!


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Thank you to all who have participated on this thread to date! I would still like to hear more ideas that people have - legislative or non-legislative - to help stop the puppy mill problem.

One other thing I have been thinking about is, what role do the breed clubs have to play? They have not been mentioned. As I am not a breed fancier, I have to admit I don't know much about how this works. But, it seems like in Germany the breed club is a much stronger presence than here in the States. Am I wrong?


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

@ Merciel - So, I did finish the book over the weekend! I enjoyed it! 

I thought the author did a good job exploring the cultural and philosophical shifts that led to the Victorian Era - the era in which the idea of a “purebred” was really created and solidified for the first time.

He showed similar rigor in addressing the post-Victorian early 1900s. I enjoyed how he documents how the focus of animal welfare advocates has shifted over the same time period in accordance with the shifting cultural norms. While I was aware of many of the (animal welfare) facts already , I felt that by setting those facts against the rich descriptions of early industrialization in America, he provided a good reminder of the conditions that led to that mindset - for better or worse.

In fact, as I have spent a lot of time in the parts of the world that probably look a lot like America what must have looked like in the transition between a primarily agrarian society to an industrialized society, I can completely relate to why the focus was where it was. Of course, I think with the hindsight of our experience, we could craft better solutions for those parts of the world too.

I felt that the author did not do as good a job exploring where we are today in the United States - and the U.S.-specific factors that led up to it. In fact, in toggling between England and the US, a lot is lost. Yes, there were certainly a couple of chapters I felt I could have written myself. That, to me, is a good thing and a bad thing. 

It is good in that he clearly validates my point-of-view on many issues, but bad (for me, at least) in that he doesn’t really expand upon them in areas he could have. 

I felt the weakest part of the book was when he transitioned to hypothesizing about a future state. He seemed to not know where to focus his attention and the end-result is him just presenting a lot of hodge-podge points-of-view.

Now, these thoughts are just scratching the surface of areas I would love to discuss further! 

You know, now that I think about it, maybe it would be a good idea for the forum to have a *“Book Club” sub-forum*. I have noticed that other books are often cited on here… might be fun : )


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Yep, that is almost exactly what I thought about it too! That's what I meant about the "pop history" thing -- I spend a lot more time reading/thinking/learning about the current state of dog rescue in the U.S. than I do the development of purebreds, so that section of the book felt fairly superficial to me. But if I were a Victorian historian who didn't know much about modern dog rescue, I'd probably have felt that way about the earlier chapters and not the later ones.

It's just the nature of the beast -- pop history is always going to be mostly about exposing people to a little bit of a lot of different things, and then if they're hooked by a particular topic they can start digging deeper on that.

I don't have time to really write a long post right now but I'll try to go more in-depth tomorrow.

I did think the section on the kennel clubs (and their responses to the Pedigree Dogs Exposed documentary as well as their own internal whistleblowers) was pretty telling and possibly relevant to the original thrust of this thread, though. What did you think?

p.s. would love to see a book club!


----------

