murraysmom

Sadly, the photo you posted is pretty mild- there are some pictures of really horrific puppymill conditions out on the web that actually make your photo (awful as it is) seem half-way humane! Thanks for posting-

aspen

Yes, though this pic is disturbing, when compared to others I saw on the net, it really is very mild. I didn't want to post any of the more disturbing photos here, because I thought some readers would think it was inappropriate. Some of the pics I found were so upsetting that I couldn't help but cry.

When I brought up the subject of puppy mills to my mother during our daily phone conversation yesterday, she told me when I was a kid my father was hired to build a deck onto the home of several Nuns. While on the property he discovered they had a lot of small breed dogs and puppies in filthy little rabbit hutches in a sweltering hot, run down out building. He reported the discovery to the sheriff and in turn their mill was shut down. I hadn't heard that sad story until yesterday.

Mikey T

There is no question those that wrote the original PA legislation want to se an end to not just commercial breeding but all breeding of dogs. One just needs to look at the orginial legislation to see that. The problem is just as we consumers are often lax in investigating and dueing due dilgence on our purchase we often fall into the same trap when it comes to legislation. Put a label on a piece of legislation a bill to regulate puppymills and huge numbers are for it when in fact it adversely effects sportsmen and hoby breeders as well.

I'm sorry but in this country making a profit is niether a moral nor illegal quait the contray it is a way of life. General speaking acompany or individual can make an extra buck scaming the american poublic but that profit is always short lived. What hobiest and those trying to shut down puppymills fail to realize is they provide a service that the consumer is willing to by extra for, as most pet shop dogs sell a much higher prices than a typical hoby breeder would sell a pet quality dog for.
1. a puppy is availble when the consumer wants it they do not have to wait
2. no annoy backround checks or questions.
3. no restriction on breeding rights.

I doubt you will find much of a disparity in how a particular individual treats his livestock be it chickens, horses, cows or dogs. Some will treat them like royality other humanly and unfortunately other will not. but As PA has proven over and over again in recent months that the new law they passed was unnecessary to prosecute and end inhumane treatment of livestock. They had the power to do before but were relunctant to do so. As we see over and over again in the articles posted the matters comming up are be ajudicated under the prior law.

There is a large segament of the pet buying public that the above conviences are critically important unless and until that chages there will be a high demand for comercial bred and sold dogs.

Lets also be carful of the demand on a standard of care for dogs we consider a minimum human treatment for commercial breeders because you can be certain they will tricle to the all pet owners as well.

Thing in the current PA legislation to be potential concerned about
1. exercise plan and doccumentation with required access to outside exercise. Apartment owners should be quaking in their boots
2. Temperature controls 50-85 degrees in the original bill now left to committeee exceeds osha standard for humans. How many dog owner do not have air condition in their house. Should A/C be a requirement for owning a dog?
3. Air ventalation standards. Along with temperature control standards will required substaintal air to air heat exchanger technology to meet or huge energy cost to compensate for the huge air turn over rates required
4. 24 hour acess to water. Yes dogs need water. but they don't need 24 hour access. controling a puppies access to water is one often suggested . How would you feel knowing you could face crimal charges of neglect or abuse because a dog knocked over the water bowl.
5. Supenstion of 4th amendment write required to own a dog because access to you home must be crated to animal inspection authoirites without prior notice or warning even though no animals are even housed in your home. Note if you foster a rescue in PA under the new Law you must Post conspiciously the rescue organization and there kennel license along with allowing unannounce searches of your home. If know one is home you have 72 hours to allow access god forbid you go on vacation you could be facing a serious criminal complaint

Let us be careful in defining what is humane and what is inhumane treatment of animals for commercial operations and not subject them to requirement so stringent that they are impossible to meet in an effort to drive them out of business. because we will only make it impossible to meet the requirement ourself when later we want one as a pet.


Saddly this is not resevered to commercial breeder. In fact there will be many that will argue that the hobbiest are responsible for some of the most aggregious problems through their practices of line breeding and the use of linited sires which limits the gene pool and tends to concentrate such genetic problems Manyh genetic problems in particular breeds can be traced to this. Von Wilbrand's in dopermans where over 2/3 are carriers is just such an example. see The Price of Popularity: Popular Sires and Population Genetics Popular Sire Syndrome and Concerns of Genetic Diversity and how the very nature of closed purebred registry politic prevent the fix of know gentic problems in breeds see The Backcross Project



Surely there are some horrific example of cruelty at some comercial establishment but not all or even most are. Why are comercial breeder painted with the same brush as a select minority. There are equal numbers of horror storys of "dog rescuer" that get over their head hand have huge number of dogs living in absolute squalor. but we don't paint all rescues with that same broad brush.

Michael Tefts

murraysmom

One reason we needed the new law:

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/238157

State Denies License to Leacock Twp. Kennel
Susan Lindt
Quote:
"Smith said the state's actions against Burkholder and Esh are proof that Act 119, signed into law by Gov. Ed Rendell in October 2008, closed loopholes in earlier versions of state dog law that allowed dogs to suffer.
"Previous versions of the dog law allowed kennel owners to operate for extended periods of time even after having their kennel license revoked or refused," Smith said. "The new law prohibits kennels in that situation from obtaining new dogs, breeding or boarding, so that they cannot operate as usual during a lengthy appeal process."
End Quote


The main reason we needed a new law of course, it that the new dog law will improve daily life for the dogs, who under the old law could be kept 24/7 in tiny cages where they could barely stand with no vet care and in freezing/sweltering enclosures on wire floors which damaged their feet-
And hopefully the cost of complying with the new requirements will drive some of the mills out of business (see the article I posted a few monthe ago in the archives speculating that as many as 300 may be going under due to the new requirements -that figure seems high to me, and I think is being circulated by the puppy mill lawyers to support their pending law suit))

To further address your response:

These provisions effect kennels selling 60 dogs per year, so sporting kennels are not effected-or apartment dwellers
( come on Mike- you can't really believe that aprtment dwellers should be quaking in their boots!? ).

And yes, puppymills exist because there is a demand for dogs- that's where educating the public comes in. I personally have spent alot of time on that- and over the past 3 years I've seen a huge leap in public awareness on this issue.

For me, this issue is not only about the dogs but also the culture of Lancaster County where I live- it's personal on alot of levels. I recently discovered that one of our family friends who is a lawyer, is representing the puppymillers in some of the cases I've posted about- he's a dog lover, thinks Murray is the greatest thing on 4 legs, but says the guys he's representing "run good operations".

And would I show up at one of Dean's basset events at the Etown Beagle Club? Probably not unless I took the "No Puppy Mills " stickers off my car-

Anyway, thanks as always for posting.

Mikey T

Ah but that IMHO is the most hornerious part of the legislation.

1. I applies to all dog owners not just keenel owner. Limits due process and even more creates the possibility of unwarranted searches and siezures. see An Open Letter To The Governor And Senate by JOHN YATES October 3, American Sporting Dog Alliance

For a small idea why sportsmen are still not satisfied with the comprises made and the word and promise of those in charge that the legislation doesn/t affect them.



That is pattently false. the size and some other space, and temperature and living condition isssue only effect commecial kennels which by the way can be requires for tranfers as few as one dog for wholesale purposes. but the majority of the legislation effect all kennels and dog owners. which specifical deals with licensing /appeals and enforcement. The undermining of due process and lessing the threshold for searches should concern every one especial those involved in rescue.

To me it is extremely dangerious often times racist, to try and reculate culture. I find it a particularly disturbing trend of the Urban dweller moving to rural areas to escape the ills of that culture only to try and instill the same culture all over again on the rural residents. It still amazaes me when years later they are bewilder that the problems they thought they escaped by moving appear in the once rural setting.
Every culture has it vices and faults. but far better to first work at understanding it and work within the culture to improve it . Rather than impose a top down solution that is bound to create resentment and go largely ignored unless enforced with near police state tactic.

-I am deeply distrubed by the implications of that statement. One should be far more concerned attending a HSUS event with a pro -hunting bumper sticker given teir knowd association with terrorist and terrorist organizations. If you were to attend such an event all you would recieve is an education in sporting dog culture and events. For the record Dean has nothing to do with the E-town event other than attending they are put on by Tim. Dean runs the Northern Lancaster Beagle Club events.

1. coated wire cage foors of proper cage and spacing is far more sanitary that the original foor requirment and it appear that many also agree. It is why the flooring requirment were removed from the legislation and sent to the special comittee. The old cage size number of dogs etc were routinely not met by the dog owning population as a whole. And if larger cages are required to humanely treate dogs why limit should only less than 1% of all dogs in Pa which are housed in commecial kennel be the only ones required to be treated humanely. Should not every dog is the state injoy the same priviledges?

I don't know about you but not all my dog go to the vet twice a year. They go as required for some that is more frequent and other less. I do not think it is the states place to mandate that twice yearly vists are required regardless of the health of the dog. It is however a good way to get more of the veterninary orgainzation to sign on.

I hope this gives you and inkling of the future. It is unlikely that the standard for humane treatment in commercial kennel can be vastly different than the standard for the comunity at large. If so this is blantently discriminatory. If the standard need to be similar guess wich one will be change. This is why pet owners in PA should be quaking in their boots. Doubt it just look at the 30 plus bills introducesd in other states by HSUS and allies which mimic the PA legislation but drastical reduce the number of dogs that define "a kennel" This legislation is not a final step but just the first in an atttempt by animal rights activist to curtail all breeding.

murraysmom

"-I am deeply distrubed by the implications of that statement. One should be far more concerned attending a HSUS event with a pro -hunting bumper sticker given teir knowd association with terrorist and terrorist organizations. If you were to attend such an event all you would recieve is an education in sporting dog culture and events. For the record Dean has nothing to do with the E-town event other than attending they are put on by Tim. Dean runs the Northern Lancaster Beagle Club events." ( Mike Tefts, regarding my statement about bumper stickers displayed at the beagle club)
There's no need to be disturbed by that statement- I've been to the club,went to one of the "fun runs" last year, and in fact used to own 20 acres bordering it on the Trail Road side. When we owned that property many years ago, both my former husband and I were 'social members' of that club and had good relations with them.And in fact, I do know something about sporting dog culture- my ex had a field lab when we lived in Virginia and used to hunt with him.. The bumper sticker comment was not an insult, just a statement of fact: I just wouldn't display possibly offensive stickers at an event run by those who might have strong feelings aginst my position. Seems rude to me. And yes, I know Tim runs the events, but was referring to "Dean's events" since he promotes them on this forum.

"To me it is extremely dangerious often times racist, to try and reculate culture. I find it a particularly disturbing trend of the Urban dweller moving to rural areas to escape the ills of that culture only to try and instill the same culture all over again on the rural residents. It still amazaes me when years later they are bewilder that the problems they thought they escaped by moving appear in the once rural setting.
Every culture has it vices and faults. but far better to first work at understanding it and work within the culture to improve it . Rather than impose a top down solution that is bound to create resentment and go largely ignored unless enforced with near police state tactic. " Mike Tefts

As far as the changing culture of Lancaster County, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. (I've edited this to try to clarify):

Yes, the culture here is changing as people move in from outside the area, but people who support the new dog law are not overtly trying to change the traditional culture here. I live here because I love the history and traditions, and I think that's the case for everyone who chooses to make this place their home. And I'm certainly not a racist!

The Amish and Mennonites who are yelling about the puppymill issue as a "support your local farmer issue" are trying to make it an issue of an attack on their traditional farming culture, in my opinion with some hypocrisy. The way I see it puppymills have nothing to do with traditional farm culture, and everything to do with greed.

As far as the relatively new aspect of our Lancaster County culture that permits puppymills: I'll be happy to see that die. Puppymills didn't grow out of any tradition - just greed and ignorance.

Don't know if I've clarified or not.

As far as your other points regarding the new dog law, I don't agree with the adverse efffects you're predicting. Time will tell.

"This legislation is not a final step but just the first in an atttempt by animal rights activist to curtail all breeding." Mike Tefts

Again, I know you don't beilieve it, but we're not PETA Mike. Really. We just want the mills out of this county.

Respectfully,
Mary Gottfried

Mikey T

Any gathering of people of any reason that can no accept a dervisity of opinions are the ones that should not be allowed to exist. What is rude is any group that expects univeral agreement on any issue whether it is material to the groups existance or not.


Just as animal rights activist rally against caging egg laying chicken is not an attack on frarming practice but rather all about the greed of farmers? The comercial raising of dogs is a farm issue. The practice in the US began as US Department of agriculture program to support small local farmers and keep them afloat see; What IS a Puppy Mill?

I have never understood when someone else makes a fair profit it is greed but when I do it it is just compensation for services rendered.

But if the goal is to end puppymills then why not spend the effort in areas that will do so. This in not done by trying to legislate them out of existance but rather educate the consumer and eliminate the road block that are but up that are kill hobby breeding. Such as restrictive zoning regulation on the number of dogs in resdidential areas. Zoning restriction for kennel license to comercial zones etc., that have a chilling effect on the hooby breader making it impossible for the hoppy/reputable breader to supply enough dogs to meet demand. I find it ironic that all those so vemently oppsed to puppymills are not out there rallying againt this onsaught of restricts on dog ownership and breeding that only severse to perpetuate puppymills because only large commercial facilities are the only ones with enough capital to fight or comply with the regulations.

and there in lies the problem it is not about the welfare of the dogs or humane treatment of dogs it is about ending comercial breeding. I for one am not comfortable ,with the govement deciding what is and what is not "commecial breeding" Once a certain type of breeding is curtailed simply because of volume and/or who they sell to it only a matter of realtively little time before all breeding is regulated.

As for not being Peta I suggest you serious look to the powers that wrote and sponsered the legislation and you will find the who's whos of animal rights wacko's at the top of the list. These are the same people that predicted armegedeon when legimite changes were made to protect the rights of sportsman and individual dog owners that were trampled all over with the earlier versions. Such as it was admited to by the PA Dept of Ag that none zero of the 3,000 kennel in pa were in compliance with the original legislation. They are same groups that tried to ram the legesilation through without hearings. The same groups that vow to be back next year to put back in what the senate removed. There is not a very good reason to believe this legislation is anything but a first step. One just has to look at the highly restrictive breeding measures being pushed through 30 states by HSUS as a sampling of what is to come. Restriction that as few as 10 dogs consitutes being regulated. When in the faces of these action one would have to be blind not to see what is coming down the road.



see below for a spattering of restrictive breeding legislation comming down the pipe.
NY SB 4961 Seeks to Classify More as Pet Dealers - Action Needed Now!!!
Florida Breeders Bill To Be Considered Tuesday, April 1

Tennessee Breeders Bills

Indiana Update:

Alabama Spay/Neuter Bill Introduced
Strict Breeder Oversight Bills on the Move in Minnesota
Nevada Bill
Indiana Breeders' Restrictions Bill
There is an asault on pet breeding in this contry by those that want to end all pet ownership under the quise of "ending puppymill" Them is the facts.


Michael Tefts