ALERT: For the full version of this post, go to the new Pack Mentality Blog site.
Veterinary Practice News offered an update Thursday on the PUPS Act (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act). We haven’t heard much of late about this proposed legislation.
If passed into law, this legislation would amend the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by requiring “high volume retail breeders” to be federally licensed and regularly inspected. It seems basically the regulations would apply to any breeder sells more than 50 puppies each year by Internet, telephone or newspaper.
The remaining text to this post, with comments, can be found at the new Pack Mentality Blog.
I’ve been thinking about a post such as this for some time and I’m finally getting around to it. I’m really troubled by the vision of dogs crammed into cages in puppy mills, living day after day with no access to anything such as playtime or compassion.
So I want to develop a list of things puppy mill dogs never get to do.
On the Bocci’s Beef blog out of Columbus, Ohio, there is an interview posted with Mary O’Connor-Shaver of Ban Ohio Dog Auctions. O’Connor-Shaver and the fellow members of her organization have been working for some time now to pass legislation to ban dog auctions.
Dog auctions, as I’ve mentioned before, are the dirty cousins to puppy mills.
Hopefully, the Ban Ohio Dog Auctions will eventually get enough signatures on a petition to have a ballot measure in place for the November 2012 election.
Bob Groh of Blue Springs, Mo. submitted a great letter to the editor, which was published Saturday on the Examiner.net website.
Groh responds to a previous editorial suggesting the “voters were duped” into voting for Proposition B in Missouri. He notes he looked the pros and cons of the measure, which sets better standards for dog breeding and goes after puppy mill operations.
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 –
House File 388 is bouncing around the Minnesota state legislature and if passed it could help in the battle against puppy mills.
An editorial from the Park Rapids Enterprise reports – “A shocking 75 percent of commercial breeders reviewed were not in compliance with Minnesota sales tax laws.”
A bill to target these breeders where they have been cheating the tax payers of the state could help shut some of them down. I hope.
The writer of a letter to the editor posted Saturday on the IndependentMail.com (in Anderson, SC) brings up another very important aspect of the puppy mill debate. Beyond the terrible treatment of the dogs in puppy mills is the cost imposed on local communities through budgeting for animal care and control agencies.
Selling puppies and kittens at 6 weeks old, breeding without regard to health, breeding without regard to temperament and selling pets like products at a big-box store usually results in more homeless pets at local shelters all across the nation.