iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Wayne Pacelle

Wayne Pacelle

Posted: May 26, 2010 09:16 PM

Federal Audit, Lawmakers Spotlight Puppy Mill Problems

What's Your Reaction:

There's long overdue action on the issue of puppy mills, and the issue got some much-needed attention yesterday from the federal government. Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and David Vitter (R-La.) took a big step in their effort to crack down on these abusive mass-breeding facilities by introducing the PUPS Act (Puppy Uniform Protection Statute, S. 3424) -- legislation that would close a massive loophole in the Animal Welfare Act that currently allows large, commercial breeders who sell puppies online and directly to the public to escape licensing, regulation, and inspection. A companion bill in the House of Representatives is expected to be introduced by Reps. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.), Lois Capps (D-Calif.) and Bill Young (R-Fla.) within the next day or two.

The legislation came right on the heels of the release of a damning report by the USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the law enforcement arm of the agency, that criticized the USDA's long history of lax oversight of commercial dog breeders (identified as dealers in the report) under the Animal Welfare Act. The report (PDF) reviewed inspections and enforcement actions taken against dog dealers from 2006-2008 and found that USDA inspectors failed to cite or properly document inhumane treatment and brought little to no enforcement actions against violators. OIG observed horrible conditions at dog facilities inspected by the USDA, including dogs needing medical treatment, dogs covered in ticks, starving dogs who had resorted to eating dogs who had already died, and dogs who had swarms of cockroaches and insects crawling through their food bowls. The USDA responded to the violations by taking little or no enforcement action, according to the report, and even failed to confiscate suffering or dying animals.

From the report: "At the re-inspection of 4,250 violators, inspectors found that 2,416 repeatedly violated AWA [the Animal Welfare Act], including some that ignored minimum care standards. Therefore, relying heavily on education for serious or repeat violators -- without an appropriate level of enforcement -- weakened the agency's ability to protect the animals."

Of course, The Humane Society of the United States has been saying for years that the USDA has historically allowed puppy mills to violate the law without fear of any kind of aggressive enforcement actions. Last week, I was pleased to hear the Obama administration publicly announce that the USDA would take a tougher stance on Animal Welfare Act enforcement, by conducting more inspections and imposing higher fines. We're glad to hear it, and we're grateful to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack for stepping up the enforcement actions.

The report also highlighted how some large dog dealers are escaping USDA oversight because they sell dogs over the Internet or directly to the public, and the OIG recommended legislative change to require that all applicable breeders selling through the Internet be regulated under the Animal Welfare Act. The USDA's own interpretation of the term "retail pet store" provided these puppy millers an exemption -- something battled out in court and ultimately left to the agency's discretion. Many of the puppy mill raids The HSUS has assisted on over the last several years have been at such facilities, so we've seen firsthand how much this legislation is needed. The USDA has now agreed to this recommendation and we hope Congress will soon take action by passing the PUPS Act.

In response to pressure from their constituents and in the interest of addressing animal cruelty, legislators in many states have also stepped up to pass laws and regulations to protect dogs at these facilities. Just this year, Oklahoma and Iowa, the second- and third-largest puppy mill states, respectively, behind Missouri, passed legislation to crack down on puppy mills. And our efforts are moving forward in Missouri to put the issue on the ballot there this November. Not all states have laws regulating commercial dog breeders though, so it's essential that the USDA aggressively enforce the law.

Of course, at the heart of the puppy mill issue is consumer education, something The HSUS has worked on for decades. "We only use USDA-licensed breeders" is one of the common but hollow assurances pet store staff give when pushing puppy mill puppies on the sales floor. What The HSUS has long noted is that a puppy mill inspected by the USDA is still a puppy mill. Dogs kept for breeding still suffer for years on end in tiny cages and have almost zero hope of having a loving home of their own. This point was underscored just last week on "Animal Planet Investigates: Petland," a one-hour special about The HSUS's investigation into the nation's largest retail supporter of puppy mills.

Yesterday's report and legislative introduction should serve as a warning to all those who protect this dubious industry -- from "kennel clubs" to pet stores to lobbying front groups who claim to care about purebred dog breeding, but in fact only care about how much money they can make peddling loads of puppies. Your days of abusing dogs for profit while snubbing the laws of this country and many states are coming to an end.

This post originally appeared on Pacelle's blog, A Humane Nation.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
02:39 PM on 06/10/2010
Wayne Says: .....from "kennel clubs" to pet stores to lobbying front groups who claim to care about purebred dog breeding, but in fact only care about how much money they can make peddling loads of puppies. Your days of abusing dogs for profit while snubbing the laws of this country and many states are coming to an end. Once again Pacelle is at it."Supposedly" HSUS is "ok" with reputable breeders and it's website tells you how to find one. Yet, truly HSUS is "not ok" with any breeding as "kennel clubs", a good source for finding a reputable breeder, apparently only cares about how much money is made off the sale of dogs and want to snub the laws of this country.
Sadly, while the general intent of better USDA control and enforcement of large scale breeders is incredibly important, closing the loop whole as currently suggested would turn EVERY breeder into a "USDA" facility. Some large scale mills are selling directly to consumers, yet reputable breeders often have websites. Further, most every American uses the internet and telephone as a way to converse. Ironically, this law, would create an environment where every breeder in the US would have to be a USDA facility and every breeder would potentially violate this new law, as we communicate with potential puppy buyers using both above formats. This law does not distinguish between reputable sources and puppy mills. Truly HSUS wants to outlaw breeding period!
09:06 PM on 05/28/2010
I do think that there is probably room for improvement in the way that APHIS conducts their investigations of breeders, but I can't see that this should be done through legislative changes. It seems to me, from reading the report, that most of the problems are already being addressed and will be taken care of through better education for the inspectors and better guidelines. Better enforcement of existing laws is needed, not new laws.
09:06 PM on 05/28/2010
As far as regulating breeders who sell over the Internet, as you know, there never was a "loophole" as so many animal rights activists like to claim. As you rightly point out, a breeder selling directly to a buyer was not regulated under previous legislation, as long as the breeder did not have more than three intact female dogs and sell dogs wholesale. The new PUPS bill would remove any separation between breeders who sell their dogs directly to the public and those who sell wholesale. What that means, for those of you who may not know, is that hobby breeders would be included in the legislation. Not "puppy mills" or current commercial breeders but people who may breed dogs for personal reasons such as showing, hunting, producing guide dog puppies, performance dogs, and so on. For instance, if you have Labrador Retrievers, which may have 10-12 puppies in a litter, and you have 4-5 litters in a year, you could easily have 50 puppies in a year. According to the new PUPS bill introduced in Congress, if you sold them by means of the Internet, telephone or newspaper, that would require you to be inspected by the USDA, even if you raised the puppies in your home.

I hardly think that someone who breeds dogs as a hobby should be inspected by the USDA or have to open up their home for inspections.
09:05 PM on 05/28/2010
I've read the OIG report on APHIS and AC enforcement. It does make sad reading. However, after reading the language in the PUPS bill, I have no idea how this bill is supposed to do anything to change enforcement. From what I read in the report, many of the problems have already been addressed by the agency, as far back as 2009. New training protocols are already being developed for inspectors. New guidelines are being written. How does a new bill, which would expand to include even more breeders to be inspected, in any way help the problems that were found in the inspection process? If the inspection program needs more money and more inspectors now, I hardly see how increasing their workload will help the problem.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Laurella Desborough
LivingInTheRealWorld
09:16 AM on 05/28/2010
Unfortunately, there are individuals who are less than caring in their animal production activities. However, the majority of animal breeders ARE caring and DO provide appropriate animal management practices in their work with animals. While we do want the best care for our animals, I don't think relying on the HSUS and their agenda is necessarily the best approach, since the agenda of the animal rights organizations is to restrict, control and prohibit animal ownership and use of any kind. Certainly the HSUS has not been the most effective national organization in representing the interests of animals, since MOST of their funds are used to lobby for laws, initiate lawsuits, and pay for donation campaigns. HSUS does not fund local shelters. HSUS has routinely weighed in on any action which would restrict humans from the traditional use of animals, whether as pets or as agricultural animals raised to feed the public. Folks might benefit from reading the site www.bewareanimalradicals.com to better understand the difference between animal welfare and animal rights. The HSUS is considered to be an animal rights organization, not animal welfare.
03:24 PM on 06/02/2010
How is it an animal rights position to argue for better conditions for factory-farmed animals or lab animals used in research? Or to push for stronger standards for puppy mills so that breeding dogs aren't kept in stacked wire cages with little to no socialization or vet care? These are the issues the HSUS works on. The phrase "traditional use of animals" is too vague to be meaningful. Pet-keeping is a longstanding tradition that the HSUS celebrates; cockfighting, on the other hand, has also been considered "traditional", but this bloodsport is now illegal in all fifty states.

Hillary, HSUS
04:57 PM on 06/10/2010
What has cockfighting have to do with dog breeding Hillary? Just because HSUS likes to lump together anyone who breeds or uses animals as a negative activity does not make it true. You paint everyone with the same brush to deceive the public. Standard propaganda tactic much used by HSUS. Wayne Pacelle doesn't even like animals, and he heads up this organization which gives less than 5% of its income to help shelters who actually taking care of animals. HSUS would rather spend those dollars legislating anyone who raises animals for pets or food out of business so everyone can be vegetarians and have no pets except those HSUS approves of. My dogs are my pets, and I do show and breed dogs. I take pride in that. If I had to meet USDA guidelines I could not raise my dogs in my home as I have done for the past 35 years. An average home does not meet the requirements for a USDA kennel. My dogs would be required to live in a kennel away from my house. Is that making life better for my dogs or for me? Right now my one or two litters each year are born next to my bed and raised in my home where I can socialize and watch over them as they develop. "HSUS celebrates pet-keeping"? I think not. Good enforcement of existing laws can resolve any problem issues, not new anti-breeder laws sponsored by HSUS.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marycp
Christian Author
10:31 AM on 05/27/2010
Abusing dogs for profit is criminal. There are so many other ways to generate an income. Strict penalties should be administered to reduce such savage behavior.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jdaddy1951
09:01 AM on 05/27/2010
I had a co-worker, not a particularly nice or pleasant lady, who was into Rottweilers. She would adopt registered puppies from licensed "breeders" and take them home and give them German names that began with "G" (Gunter, Gus, Greta, Gerda, etc.).

She would brag and brag and brag and annoy the hell out of the rest of us about HER babies and would demand days off from work to celebrate the animals' birthdays and adoption days.

We tolerated her, because we felt she was better off having dogs than children.

We also would ask her about the breeders she dealt with. Was she sure that her dogs were not in-bred, could she be certain that the paperwork told the whole story? Oh, yes, she said.

One day, she did not come into work. We called her house and discovered that her latest half-grown puppy, Gretel, had cornered her in the garage and tore off her left arm.

When she was released from the hospital with several hundred stitches and only partial use of her arm, she had her husband drive her to Gretel's grave --- he had taken a shotgun and blown out Gretel's brains and then kicked the corpse --- and spit on it. She then switched to cocker spaniels: Muffy, Fluffy, Puffy, Stuffy ...
10:00 PM on 06/10/2010
Uh, Jdaddy how could she have partial use of an arm that you say was torn off? Just a thought...
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jdaddy1951
01:05 AM on 06/11/2010
Sweetie, her arm WAS torn off, but it was reattached. A miracle of modern medical science. Unfortunately, even with reattachment, her use of it was limited.

Keep up the thoughts. Thinking is good.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JeanRR
07:25 AM on 05/27/2010
Why, at a time when we should be concerned with the economy, jobs, oil spills, are we worrying about something like the PUPS Act? If we are truly concerned about the welfare of dogs , we should just enforce laws already on the books. Why are we not doing that? One very good reason is the desperate lack of money for law enforcement. Passing another law isn't going to affect that. Passing another law that will not be enforced is going to help anyone, animal or human