We’re told that we must all stand together with puppy mills to
keep from going under. Well I’ve never heard anyone claim that
the best way to end a war was to side with the enemy. I don’t
see how aligning with commercial breeders, whether large or
small, can help preserve the concept of purebred dog breeding as
a home hobby.
has said that we need to support puppy mills in order to
control and educate them. Yet there is no evidence that
supporting the mills will do that as it never has.
some ‘commercial breeders’ have excellent ‘facilities’, far
better than a hobby breeder might have, but since when is
raising dogs in a ‘facility’ a plus for the dogs or the people
who will eventually own them as companions? How does a
‘facility’ win out over loving care, home raising, careful
selection of breeding stock, socialization and careful home
choices for pups?
all the years AKC has been actively encouraging puppy mill
registrations, the dogs were not better off in those facilities.
What we do have is decades of AKC quietly making profits off the
puppy mills and no evidence of controls or education beyond how to
register litters. Even now you see AKC ‘fixing’ it so dogs on
limited registration or with no registration at all can be bred
and have AKC registered pups. I’m sure many of you can also
remember when AKC was all for the PAWS legislation perhaps
hoping to be the ones profiting off of inspecting kennels for
the new regime. Then AKC wonders how it could be losing dog
AKC has to give up one of its registering groups, I don’t think
it will be the one that is costly to maintain instead of a
profit center. Corporate AKC thus might not always have the
welfare of responsible breeders foremost in their minds, no
matter what individuals working there might believe in. Anyone
working in a big company knows that company goals and ethics may
not reflect that of the individual workers.
told we need the mills to produce enough puppies for the
market’s demand for dogs. Why is that? Just because there is a
demand doesn’t mean it has to be met or that it has to be met by
commercial facilities. What if instead of commercial breeders we
had more home raised dogs from top quality dogs sold to pet
owners who then might become interested in dog sports?
Before the USDA decided dog farming of purebred dogs could keep
farmers on their family farm, when you wanted a puppy you looked
for a local breeder. You put the word out among people you knew.
You got a pup from the family down the street or the next town
over, a friend of your cousin, or someone you worked with who
had a litter. For a dog for hunting or herding you went to
someone who used their dogs for that purpose. For an inexpensive
family pet you might find a cross bred dog or a ‘cull’ from a
find it hard to believe it is a ‘negative’ for dogs, or their
owners, when their pups come from local home breeders who raise
their pups in with their families instead of in commercial
situations. Just think what it might do for dog shows if more
people had exposure to raising their own pups!
think this new campaign to embrace the puppy mills in hopes we
can make use of their money or political power to attain our own
goals is not only hypocritical (we hate you for being greedy
profit seekers ruining our breeds but give us your money and
political support and you can be our friends), but bad planning
for gaining the support of people who love and care about dogs.
Those are the people we need to convince that we are NOT like
the ones they see on prime time news and in AR campaigns. The
public needs to know “dog breeder” is not a dirty word. We need
to define and distinguish ourselves, not be lumped in with the
commercial breeders who do not have the same values and goals.
recent AR campaign in MA, voters followed the AR thinking that
greyhound racing and breeding was inhumane and cruel. The
responding arguments from the racing side of things were all
about how the AR campaign would put people out of work and cost
the state tax money. I feel a focus on the responsible breeders
and the untruths in the AR ads may have changed the results. In
the eyes of the general public the dogs ‘won’ and now the state
of MA will pretty much never see greyhounds again once the
retired racers placed by rescue groups all die off. For a dog
lover, lost income isn’t the same as caring about the dogs.
embracing the puppy mills as ‘brethren’ going to do dogs any
good (remember the dogs?) or aid in the general public having a
better view of dog breeders? Will it keep the public from
supporting legislation that will wipe out all private dog
breeding? Will it keep them from responding to animal rights
media campaigns? In my view we need more of the dog loving
population with us not against us.
the same time I see those calling for us to embrace the mills
also bashing rescue, shelter adoptions, vegetarians, those who
use wool or fur, even those who helped bring to the USA dogs
that a soldier fell in love with while overseas; as being
somehow ‘against’ us and to be avoided. This to me simply makes
it look like the general idea is to push away all the exact
types of people, dog lovers, whose support we need to
defeat bad legislation. Getting in line with the very people
who are making breeder a dirty word, and giving the AR groups
more ammunition for their campaigns to stop all breeding seems
is something wrong with this picture. To me it looks like
someone has managed to get insiders in the fancy to agree to
make us all extremely vulnerable to the AR campaigns by trying
to blur the line between the ‘bad guys’ and the ‘good guys’.
Here’s a quote from someone who says it better than I – “He who
passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps
to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against
it is really cooperating with it.” Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Dog Press attacked
for promoting Animal Rights in Defining Puppy Mills. Editor defends AKC,
cites position on AR, and challenges anonymous accuser…
Thrasher refutes column "defining puppy mills", joining an organized
attack on The Dog Press.