The Pack of Putrid Punditry Award for the day goes to Pennsylvania state representative Gordon Denlinger, who has introduced a resolution to reopen discussion on the state’s puppy mill regulations, which were enacted in 2008.
It seems, as reported by The Morning Call, Denlinger and others of like (and warped) mind want to study the economic impact of shutting down puppy mills. They say the state lost millions in sales tax dollars and the puppy millers lots millions in sales.
An article posted on LancasterOnline.com seems to show Denlinger meandering around his true intentions –
“” “”
Denlinger, however, said there is “no support in the state House for a reopening of the dog law, or a weakening of dog treatment standards.”
“” “”
But then this –
“” “”
“I really had no specific changes in mind for the dog law as enacted. I do feel that some form of study should be performed to learn if the law has worked, and what the impact to affected parties has been,” Denlinger said.
“” “”
I can save him and the state some cash. The reporting in this story indicates the breeders who were not meeting the standards either shut down or moved. That tells us the law is working. Sure there are reduced revenues. The bad breeders are going out of business.
And then we find that Denlinger represents a section of the state that is called “the heart of dog-breeding activity.” No wonder.
Naturally, the American Kennel Club has weighed in with strong support for Denlinger’s resolution. Lancaster Online quotes a statement from the AKC, as saying it – “recognizes the significant impact that dog breeders have on the economy and the significant resources breeders devote to their business.”
Actually, the good breeders in the state were not adversely impacted by the new regulations. So once again, the AKC is defending puppy mills.
The state’s Department of Agriculture is reporting the number of commercial kennels in the state fell from 303 in 2009 to 87 now. Sounds like what we always call in my neck of the woods – “Strength by Subtraction.”
Looks like the puppy mills are out and law worked as exactly as it was designed to work. But now the puppy mill supporters – in the state legislature and from the likes of the AKC – are crying the blues.
The AKC doesn’t like it because they lose money when puppy mills shut down.
Let’s throw in a bonus Pack of Putrid Punditry Award for the AKC.
PACK MENTALITY 
Posted by Lisa Baize on March 5, 2011 at 12:01 pm
I found it very interesting that no where in this article was mentioned what it cost the state to care for abandoned or injured dogs as a result of overpopulation due to puppy mills. The inbreeding or lack of responsible breeding leads to medical and behavioral issues that cause dogs to be “dumped” or turned in to animal shelters. Animal control is a big drain financially on municipalities and would be lessened if responsible breeding was followed. I have rehabed dogs from puppy mills and it is heartbreaking to see them scared of people, feet splayed from standing on wire and feet urine and feces stained and infected and not know what grass is or how to play. Any one that cares even a little about animals cannot condone this kind of life for them.
Posted by Tom Grady on March 6, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Lisa.
Great point. I’ve touched on this before. There is a cost to homelessness – in both tax dollars used to support the operation of local animal shelters and in the dollars donated to local, regional and national rescue organizations.
I wonder if the people who are backing the “study” of the impact of the new regulations understand all this?
Posted by Helen Smith on March 6, 2011 at 9:57 am
If Gordon Denlinger feels a study should be done, let him study the impact these places have had on PA’s shelters and rescue organizations over the years. Interesting, he’s worried about closing down substandard kennels and the money they’ll lose but he could give a damn about the money shelters have to spend on their poor sick dogs if these puppy mills stay open. Not to mention the hit the tourism industry has suffered in Denlinger’s own county because of all the negative publicity. Anyone see Oprah??
Posted by Tom Grady on March 6, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Helen,
As I noted above. I doubt Denlinger understands or even wants to understand the important points you’ve made here.
The costs of allowing puppy mills to stay in operation is far greater than what Denlinger considers to be the losses. Of course, beyond the dollars, is the cost lives lost every year.
Posted by Donna Johnson on March 6, 2011 at 10:21 am
I am SICK and FED-UP with all this pity the Mill Owners.. BS..they are idiots that make money any way they can .. those dogs are MONEY MAKERS, who cares if they are cared for in a humane manner. I have saved a few dogs out of mills and the cost is ridiculous because the MILL OWNERS cared less about the sickly pups.. just let them die. Let them lay and suffer till they take their last breath !! OR YES THE SHELTERS.. they are overwhelmed with animals no one wants. STOP THIS.. STOP THE RECKLESS BREEDING. Stop the terrible treatment of the dogs!!!!
Posted by Tom Grady on March 6, 2011 at 9:48 pm
So true – and “reckless breeding” is a great way to put it.
Posted by Linda Lori on March 7, 2011 at 1:54 am
Who’s up for offering to take Mr. Denlinger on a personal tour of a puppy mill. TV camera crew comes too. Let him try to defend his position then. BTW: This is what happens when the people elect a politician instead of a human being.
Posted by Tom Grady on March 7, 2011 at 2:07 pm
That would be an interesting tour, especially if someone from an area animal-welfare group went along to throw the questions his way.