# Good Intentions / Poor Outcomes



## Daniel Park (Nov 24, 2021)

I get it. You rescue dogs. I've personally rescued a Retired Racing Greyhound, a Crazy Black Lab, and a Senior Citizen Yorkie over the past 30 years. However, the climate for dog adoption has changed. It is no a major hassle to adopt a dog. No, you can't come see my house. No, I don't have a fence because I walk my dog. No, I'm not doing a background check. I understand the goal is to place the dog into a good, safe and loving home. Your efforts are noble, but by being so invasive you are actually pushing people to puppy mills. The very thing you purport to oppose. 

I gave up on adoption. After 6 months of horrible response times, if a response was given at all, and completely over the line intrusiveness I went to a puppy mill in PA and bought an 8 week old pup. I paid an arm and a leg for him. No questions, no hassle. It was obscene how easy it was. My dog has now had all his shots, has had genetic testing, has been neutered and chipped, and has just graduated from puppy school. He is happy, healthy, and loved.

This is the first time I've ever bought a dog and I wasn't happy about doing it. I believe in adoption, but the pendulum has swung too far into protectiveness, intrusion, and control. You've overcompensated. Who would want to go through the ordeal of adoption. You are aggravating the very problem you are trying to solve. You would be better served focusing on quick adoptions, education, and assuring people follow up with a vet.


----------



## storyist (Sep 19, 2019)

You are not the first person or the tenth I've seen complaining about this on dog forums, but most of them go on to buy from reputable breeders or at least halfway decent backyard breeders, not puppy mills. Well bred doesn't cost any more, although there are again some hoops to jump through. What's done is done, and I hope your puppy stays healthy and has a long and happy life.


----------



## Toedtoes (Sep 25, 2021)

Yes, rescue groups tend to be more "in your face" to ensure good homes. That is because most of their dogs (and other animals) have already been through a tough time with bad homes and they are in a position to be selective. 

I've been doing rescue for decades. My Mom did it before me. It is amazing the way people will lie to get an animal. I don't know you. I don't know if anything you tell me is true. I have two choices: I can ask you a ton of questions and do a background check on you; or I can just believe you. With the former, I may upset some people, but I WILL get a good home for my foster animal. With the latter, I get the cat back because you chased it through the house all night - when I told you she would hide for the first few months and to be very patient - and then dumped her on the cashier at the Petco the next morning with her so scared and freaked out you could smell her 6 ft away. Or I get the dog back because you decided you didn't need to give the dog more than two 20 minute walks a day (when I told you he needed mental stimulation and high activity like agility training) and he tore your sofa apart in boredom while you filled your coffee cup. Or you told me you didn't have small children and then tried to sue me because the dog (that I told you didn't like small children) bit your precious 4 year old when he kept yanking her ears.

There are other choices. Local shelters (city or county) rarely have such intense policies and adoption fees are usually low (my Cat-dog's fee was $10 because she was a large dog). Reputable breeders cost no more than a puppy mill and care for their dogs and offer guarantees on the puppies. They most often will take the dog back at any time if you are unable to keep it. With either of these, you are not supporting someone who keeps the dogs in wire cages with no care and breeds them over and over and over until they die in filth.

No one forced you to go to a puppy mill. YOU chose to go to an irresponsible (or worse) breeder and pay for a puppy that could have physical and/or psychological issues. I hope as he grows up he stays as perfect as he seems to be now. I hope if he does have issues that you take responsibilty for him and don't dump him on those rescue groups you are now complaining about.

Beginning in October 2020, I started looking for a young puppy to adopt. I found some at rescues who had policies and procedures I didn't want to deal with. I saw puppies with adoption fees that were more than I would pay for a purebred. I saw puppies adopted out the day they were posted. I had rescues not respond back. I had rescues tell me no. In February 2021, I adopted my Tornado-dog at 7 weeks old. I drove over 4 hours to the shelter to get him and another 4+ hours to bring him home. It was worth all that effort. Because everyone was focused on matching the right dog with the right home rather than just appeasing me, I ended up with a dog I love and who fits in with my family.


----------



## LeoRose (Aug 20, 2015)

Well, water under the bridge now, but with everyone and their second cousin wanting a dog or puppy this past year, it's no wonder that rescues and shelters have gotten pickier about placing animals. Nobody forced you to go to, as you yourself proclaimed it, a puppymill. Even a backyard breeder, who is just breeding their pets, is a better option. 

I would advise that you get insurance (look for a policy that covers genetic health problems), if you haven't already.


----------



## Khecha Wacipi (Oct 10, 2021)

Daniel Park said:


> I get it. You rescue dogs. I've personally rescued a Retired Racing Greyhound, a Crazy Black Lab, and a Senior Citizen Yorkie over the past 30 years. However, the climate for dog adoption has changed. It is no a major hassle to adopt a dog. No, you can't come see my house. No, I don't have a fence because I walk my dog. No, I'm not doing a background check. I understand the goal is to place the dog into a good, safe and loving home. Your efforts are noble, but by being so invasive you are actually pushing people to puppy mills. The very thing you purport to oppose.
> 
> I gave up on adoption. After 6 months of horrible response times, if a response was given at all, and completely over the line intrusiveness I went to a puppy mill in PA and bought an 8 week old pup. I paid an arm and a leg for him. No questions, no hassle. It was obscene how easy it was. My dog has now had all his shots, has had genetic testing, has been neutered and chipped, and has just graduated from puppy school. He is happy, healthy, and loved.
> 
> This is the first time I've ever bought a dog and I wasn't happy about doing it. I believe in adoption, but the pendulum has swung too far into protectiveness, intrusion, and control. You've overcompensated. Who would want to go through the ordeal of adoption. You are aggravating the very problem you are trying to solve. You would be better served focusing on quick adoptions, education, and assuring people follow up with a vet.


I see.
So, just because you didn't want to go through a rescue, or you didn't have the patience to wait for someone to get back to you (when everyone in rescue is overwhelmed these days, all are volunteer, and have lives to live as well as doing rescue work), and instead of waiting to find a decent breeder of the dog you wanted, you went and supported a terrible industry that causes millions of dogs to live in inhumane conditions and be bred literally to death to produce puppies just to make money. And now you are trying to blame your choice to do this on rescue groups who simply want to do their best to find good homes for their dogs. This is not their fault.

No one "pushed" you into going to buy a dog at a puppy mill. _You _chose to do that. Personally, I find that truly reprehensible.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

There is no definition (legal or otherwise) of "Puppy Mill." It's everyone's different idea of bad pet breeding. 

So, you opted to buy a puppy. Fine. I hope you enjoy your new dog! 

I have bought my last 4 puppies from breeders. All were from known lineage with health tested. 

I agree about the invasiveness of rescues. When I buy a dog or any animal it is my property. With a rescue it is often "our" property. 

That isn't going to happen.


----------



## storyist (Sep 19, 2019)

Evidently there are rescues who continue to be invasive toward adopters, but the ones I've known aren't like that. They can be a PITAs during the adoption process (if you've done rescue and experienced the multiple kinds of lies people who know they aren't good homes tell to get a dog you'd understand why), but once they do the adoption, that's it. The dog is yours. The only requirement is if you can't keep the dog, it goes back to the rescue. They may call once in a while to see how you're doing, but so do good breeders.

The truth is also that if you want a dog from a good, reputable breeder you're going to face some requirements. Every one I contacted in my recent puppy quest has an initial application that wants basic info about the kind of home you offer, dog experience, references, etc. I've never known a breeder who does home checks, but I've known some who won't sell out of their immediate area because if they have to take a dog back they don't want to have to go across the country. I did see a reference in a breed forum to a breeder who did home checks, although that the first time I ever heard of a breeder doing that. Some breeders do have what is IMO onerous contracts. I turned away from one pretty nice one because of the contract.

So if you consider a dog "just property" and want no more than someone who will take your money and hand over a puppy without giving a damn about the kind of home you offer or your intentions, you pretty much are reduced to getting a puppy from the lower echelons of back yard breeders or a puppy mill.


----------



## Toedtoes (Sep 25, 2021)

3GSD4IPO said:


> There is no definition (legal or otherwise) of "Puppy Mill." It's everyone's different idea of bad pet breeding.
> 
> So, you opted to buy a puppy. Fine. I hope you enjoy your new dog!
> 
> ...


Per Merriam-Webster:
*Definition of puppy mill*

*: *a commercial farming operation in which purebred dogs are raised in large numbers and often in substandard or poor conditions


I guess that rather defines what a puppy mill is.

As for the dog being your property, this is why rescue groups do what they do. Because people consider dogs "property" rather than living creatures. And while not all of those people abuse their dogs, they are much more likely to do so than someone who see the dog as a member of the family. They are more likely to neglect the dog. And they are more likely to use adversive training methods.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

I don't really have a problem with classic BYBs, broadly speaking, as long as they're not producing dogs into an already oversaturated market, they're at least google-educated in fundamentals related to their breed (e.g. avoiding lethal white), and they do proper prenatal and pup care. You want little Kayleigh and Brayden to witness the miracle of life, so you cross your nice pet with another nice pet and sell the pups to nice pet homes...whatever, great, just make sure you're ready to pay the vet bills. IMO it was more of a problem twenty-five years ago when shelters were packed and healthy sane dogs were being regularly killed for space - it was irresponsible to contribute to the overpopulation problem. It was also a lot more of a challenge then for an average joe to get info about good breeding practices. Breeds with endemic heritable health concerns (like Cavs) or that are already overrepresented in rescue/shelters (like pits) shouldn't be produced this way, but it's pretty hard to screw up, say, a litter of beagles. I'd be happy if rather than discouraging BYBs altogether there was more of a campaign to make it routine to check hips and hearts before breeding.

People who knowingly (either overtly or by turning a blind eye to the source of the pups) help mills profit, OTOH, should immediately go out find a burly man to slam their heads in a car door. Mills cause untold suffering at multiple levels.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Toedtoes said:


> Per Merriam-Webster:
> *Definition of puppy mill*
> 
> *: *a commercial farming operation in which purebred dogs are raised in large numbers and often in substandard or poor conditions
> ...


I think you mean Aversive???
I should have clarified there is no LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE definition of puppy mill.. and even Webster's is vague. What is "large numbers" to.one is not to another and what one considers substandard conditions is not to another. It is vague and very much still undefined.

As to property yes. Again, legally I own my dog. I do love all my animals but they are still my PROPERTY in every legal sense of the word. I looked at rescuing a mini horse companion for my horse. I ended up just buying a mini horse instead because the rescue wanted free access to my land and buildings to check on "their" pony! NO!

That my animals are also my legal property does not make them less cared for, untrained, poorly kept or abused or (gasp) unloved! I love them dearly!

When an animal is BOUGHT from a rescue the issue is the rescue often has you sign a contract wherein they still have a legal interest in the property (in this case a pet). I simply do not want that. I buy an animal it is mine and my responsibility (and I take that responsibility seriously).

Every dog I have purchased from a breeder is now completely my dog. You know those puppy contracts breeders have? Most are not valid and most cannot be enforced in court in the US. I signed ONE contract and, in the end, the BREEDER stopped breeding dogs and no longer could enforce that contract! None of this damaged the dog.

Yes to good breeders wanting references, vet references and so forth. The dogs I have bought in recent years have been from people I know through competitive dog sport. 

Sadly I have seen animals that were adopted end up in bad situations and I know of more than a few rescues that have turned into horror shows of hoarding. 

Get the dog where you want. Don't malign the purchaser for their choices. 

Continue to educate buyers of your breed interest in the hope that good breeders will be contacted. Understand that a well bred dog won't be inexpensive. 

Most of all, enjoy your animals and give them good care. Even if a dog is legally your PROPERTY the ultimate goal is to have fun with your dog and to love him/her.


----------



## Khecha Wacipi (Oct 10, 2021)

I have worked many years with a breed rescue. I have fostered dogs and done home checks. I know that home checks are absolutely necessary unless I or someone else in the rescue knows the person applying to adopt.

they are necessary because you simply cannot tell what a situation is by talking to someone over the phone. People lie, avoid answering, or mislead in their answers. I have had someone tell me they had a fenced in yard when the "fence" was basically a wire loop affair about 6" tall. I have talked to someone on the phone who sounded OK and then gone to the house to find that it was so appallingly filthy, house and yard both, that it was a health hazard to people and animals both. You cannot just take what someone says at their word, and if you are being responsible to where the dogs go you will do a home check unless you know the person or have excellent references for them.

Once the dog is in the new home, I remain available for consult if there are any problems, and will come back to the house but only if invited. If I know that an animal is being mishandled to the point of it being dangerous in one way or another I will arrange to have the dog confiscated and brought back into rescue. Other than that...yes...the dog is theirs and no one will interfere.

Any rescue that says it needs to have open permission to access the property at any time after the adoption is complete is definitely going overboard, in my opinion, and I would never agree to that as an adopter.

But telling a person to "get the dog wherever you want" is going overboard as well, and is very bad advice for anyone.

Puppy mills are more terrible than most people know. Maybe you haven't ever seen one. I have, several times. The conditions are almost always inhumane and can get worse from there to the point of being truly sickening and disgusting. Feces all over the place. Diseased animals. Dogs who cannot walk because they have spent their entire lives in a cage. Dogs who have never had the chance even to have a relationship of any kind - with a human or another dog. dogs who don't even know they are dogs, and have known nothing but misery.

Many backyard breeders fall into this kind of category as well. To give money to support such a thing is every bit as wrong and unjustifiable as the actions of the owner of such operations.

Seeing dogs as property is a two edged thing. One - the legal definition - is a good thing because it protects the dog as my property. The other way of looking at it includes seeing the dog(s) as things to which a person who owns them can do anything they want, however irresponsible or cruel that is. It is of course the latter that I object to, not the former. How I see my dogs is that they are my family and I give them every bit as much courtesy as I would give to a human being living with me. The property aspect would only enter my mind if someone tried to take one of them from me or hurt one of them.

If anyone had seen what I have seen, and had taken the time ( a lot of time) to work to rehabilitate the dogs who are rescued from such situations - unable to walk, unable to play, terrified all the time of everything and in terrible health condition, if they had seen the horrors of it and what it does to the dogs, they would never say to someone that it was OK or justifiable to buy a dog from such a place as a puppy mill.


----------



## Khecha Wacipi (Oct 10, 2021)

3GSD4IPO said:


> I think you mean Aversive???
> I should have clarified there is no LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE definition of puppy mill.. and even Webster's is vague. What is "large numbers" to.one is not to another and what one considers substandard conditions is not to another. It is vague and very much still undefined.


This may be vague in the law, and that is something that needs to change.
But it is not at all vague to someone who has seen what these places are like.

Apparently you have not seen what I have seen. If you had you would view things differently.

What I have seen no one would call acceptable unless they were completely unhinged, or thought that dogs are machines with no feelings or need to be cared for. 



3GSD4IPO said:


> Get the dog where you want. Don't malign the purchaser for their choices.


I will always criticize anyone who buys a dog from a puppy mill and I will equally criticize someone who condones such a thing. 
But more than criticize, I will try to educate, because if everyone know what these places do to the dogs they would not buy from them and the bad breeders and puppy mills would go out of business. And if everyone knew how terrible the health conditions are in these places, how badly bred the dogs are and how little health care they get they would also shun those places because it's not at all uncommon to buy a puppy form a place like that, pay a lot of money, and have a dog with congenital defects and/or diseases that will cost thousands in vet bills and untold heartache and pain for both the dog and the person.


----------



## Toedtoes (Sep 25, 2021)

You're getting a bit petty calling me out on a typo, but yes, I meant aversive.

*Merle AVENSON and Jean Avenson, Plaintiffs,
v.
Lesley ZEGART, Minnesota Humane Society, Gary A. Mills, Larry Johnson, and Dr. Alan Olander, Defendants.*
Civ. No. 6-83-903

A "puppy mill" is a dog breeding operation in which the health of the dogs is disregarded in order to maintain a low overhead and maximize profits.


Yes, there are definitions for "puppy mill" and they are easy to identify as such. That it isn't stated in code does not make it undefined - it just shows how little the dogs' well-being is cared about in the US.

Are there contracts that "go too far"? Sure. But there is always another rescue, shelter, or responsible breeder. No one says "you MUST get the animal HERE" - folks are just saying "don't support and encourage those businesses and/or people who don't treat the animals humanely".

To condone, support and encourage people who buy from puppy mills, you are condoning, supporting and encouraging the puppy mills. And that means more genetically damaged, psychologically injured, abused, unhealthy, and "problem" dogs out in the world. And where do these dogs ultimately go? To the rescue groups and shelters.

As for the rescue groups hoarding, etc. You are brushing all rescues in the same light as a rare few. That's like condemning all breeders along with the puppy mills. Or condemning all owners along with the abusive owners.

As I said before, there are many choices on where to get a pet without supporting a puppy mill. To get a puppy from a puppy mill, you are being lazy. You are taking the quickest route even though you know it is most likely going to bite you in the behind at a later date. 

My animals aren't my property. They are my dogs, cats, and bird. They are not mine to do with as I wish, any more than my child is mine to with as I wish. Their welfare takes precedent over everything else I may wish for them. I make sacrifices for them. I put their needs over my wants. And yes, my treatment of my animals is subject to the opinions of other people - whether I like it or not. And if my treatment is seen as lacking, then call me out on it. 

Which has happened. I had a poodle mix who was old and had bad legs. I'd let her out in my backyard several times a day and she'd hobble around for a while. A neighbor saw her and called animal control. The officer came out. I took her out back and showed her the yard and the dog. She said "oh yeah, that's what I thought." She had no problem with the welfare of my dog or the conditions in which she lived - she realized this was an old dog in the last stage of her life who had difficulty moving around. She also saw that I was not mistreating, abusing or neglecting her. I didn't get mad over the invasion of privacy. I didn't get defensive. I understood that my dog's welfare was being cared about by others and simply let them see for themselves the truth.

Again: if you don't like the policies at one rescue, shelter, or breeder, then go elsewhere. But don't go to a place that doesn't put the welfare of their animals first and foremost.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Khecha Wacipi said:


> This may be vague in the law, and that is something that needs to change.
> But it is not at all vague to someone who has seen what these places are like.
> 
> Apparently you have not seen what I have seen. If you had you would view things differently.
> ...


You conveniently for got to include this quotte:



> Continue to educate buyers of your breed interest in the hope that good breeders will be contacted. Understand that a well bred dog won't be inexpensive.


My point is that WITHOUT A LEGAL DEFINITION that has CLEAR DEFINITION what is or is not a "puppy mill" is a SUBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION. 

I am not "for" dog misery. I have seen it THAT is not the point. 

WITHOUT clear DEFINITION "puppy mill" in a court of law or in legislation is MEANINGLESS. 

One person will say "Breeding any bitch back to back" is "puppy mill." Another will say "Six litters a year is a puppy mill" while yet another will say "one litter with no health testing on parents is a "puppy mill." 

Until we have a clear LEGAL definition of "puppy mill" there is NO CRIME COMMITTED under that descriptor! THAT my friends, is the PROBLEM. 

Now, it is illegal to keep animals in filth under most Ag and Markets laws. It is illegal to keep pet animals without adequate shelter (livestock, including horses, have different rules). It is illegal under ag and markets laws to not provide food and water. Even in this there is still subjectivity. What is "adequate" shelter can gat messy and has gotten messy. 

The BEST THING we can do is EDUCATE as none of this exists without buyers. 

The OP bought a dog. We do not really know anything else. I hope he is happy with his dog!


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

ToedToes I will NEVER let animal control on my property without a bonafide Search Warrant. 

Yes you have animals. They ARE your legal property (in the US). There are laws that regulate how those animals are kept. Of course you love them, care for them and secure them. 

Just because you own something and it is your property does not automatically mean you don't love and care for it if it is a living thing. 

Trust me, you WANT that dog to be your property if someone comes along and takes that dog out of your back yard or your vehicle! If the dog is NOT your property then someone could take it and your would have no legal recourse to get the dog back. 

Even with legal recourse it can be difficult to get a dog back when the dog is taken by someone in animal control or a rescue _even when the animal IS being cared for prior to such seizure_. I have seen this. It was heartbreaking for the owner who eventually ran out of financial resources to continue the court battle, even though they were within their rights. 

No. Animal Control will not be given access to my property without a search warrant. If they do they are trespassing and for that I have legal recourse.


----------



## Toedtoes (Sep 25, 2021)

I have provided two clear definitions of puppy mill. Just because they don't spell out the number of dogs, etc, doesn't make it unclear. 

Puppy mills are defined, but NOT illegal. That is the problem. 

However, puppy mills can and are procesuted for animal abuse, neglect, etc. The case I quoted is just one example.



3GSD4IPO said:


> One person will say "Breeding any bitch back to back" is "puppy mill." Another will say "Six litters a year is a puppy mill" while yet another will say "one litter with no health testing on parents is a "puppy mill."


Just because "someone" may choose to call them puppy mills does NOT mean that the definition is faulty. It just means a person is misusing the term.


----------



## Toedtoes (Sep 25, 2021)

3GSD4IPO said:


> Trust me, you WANT that dog to be your property if someone comes along and takes that dog out of your back yard or your vehicle! If the dog is NOT your property then someone could take it and your would have no legal recourse to get the dog back.


No, I want my animals to be acknowledged as sentient beings and the laws updated to reflect that and protect them appropriately.

Children aren't property, yet it is illegal to take them from your backyard or vehicle. Hmm, a dognapping law would make it illegal to take a dog from a backyard or vehicle (currently theft of personal property) without incurring the same ability for people to abuse them as they are currently able to do so being labeled as property.


----------



## Khecha Wacipi (Oct 10, 2021)

3GSD4IPO said:


> You conveniently for got to include this quotte:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow. What a lot of yelling!
No need to get all hot under the collar there, 3GSD. We are just exchanging opinions. 

And I did read your whole post. And I agree that the law needs to change and not be vague. I said that in my post. I also advocated for education. 
And I said, and stand by it, that anyone who buys from a puppy mill is guilty of supporting a terrible industry. The OP said they bought a dog from a puppy mill. I was only taking them at their word.
Maybe you need to calm down. Have a nice cup of tea, or something.


----------



## Khecha Wacipi (Oct 10, 2021)

Toedtoes said:


> No, I want my animals to be acknowledged as sentient beings and the laws updated to reflect that and protect them appropriately.
> 
> Children aren't property, yet it is illegal to take them from your backyard or vehicle. Hmm, a dognapping law would make it illegal to take a dog from a backyard or vehicle (currently theft of personal property) without incurring the same ability for people to abuse them as they are currently able to do so being labeled as property.


I think that the laws do recognize dogs and other animals as sentient beings.
If the laws didn't recognize that, then animal abuse wouldn't be illegal. After all, it's not illegal to take a sledgehammer to your car, or fail to do the maintenance on it and run it into the ground. No one cares about that, nor should they, because the car has no feelings.

I have no problem with my dogs being legally my property. Being my property does not, under the law, give me permission to abuse them. People who abuse animals can be charged, fined, put in prison, animals confiscated. This would not be the case if animals were not recognized as sentient beings under the law.

What I want to see, and what I advocate for and educate about on a daily basis, is for people to see dogs and other animals not only as sentient but also as beings who have their own thoughts and language and way of looking at things, and it is up to us to learn their language and how to communicate with them. I would like for a person's first thought if they have a problem with their dog to be "How does my dog view this situation?" instead of "I have a bad dog who needs to be punished". 

I often work with people who love their dog, want to do the best for the dog, and fully recognize that the dog thinks and feels, but it has never once occurred to them to ask themselves how a situation feels from the perspective of the dog. Once I draw their attention to that, sometimes the lightbulb goes on and things will improve for the dog. People may think to put themselves into another person's shoes, but not to do so into another's paws.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

The point being missed is what the LAW perceives. 
Say there is a breeder of dogs wherein the dogs are clean, well cared for, have food and water but produce 50 litters of purebred puppies a year. The bitches start their breeding history at 12 months old and are bred every heat until age 7. St age 7 they are humanely euthanized. This would be described by many here as a"puppy mill." There are NO LAWS that would shut that breeder down (assuming they were not breaking local zoning laws). It would not matter if the dogs produced puppies that developed genetically related disorders later in life. It would not matter if the dogs had genetically terrible temperaments. This breeder is not breaking any laws. 

Another example is a breeder has a female purebred dog. That person breeds their female starting at 18 months old to the neighbors pure bred dog. No health tests are done. The litter is sold and they make $$. They repeat this 5 times breeding the bitch every cycle. Animals are well cared for. Money is made. They buy a second bitch. Rinse and repeat with her. No health testing or temperament guarantees. Is this a puppy mill? Is this a Back Yard Breeder? Now we have ANOTHER term that needs defining. What term is legal in a court of law when Joe brings a case because their puppy developed a genetic disease??? Joe has no case...

Now go to another scenario. 
Breeder has several dogs in stacked cages. The dogs are filthy but well fed and have shelter. The breeder produces 5 litters a year. 25% of the puppies die but they still sell 75% of the puppies. When the buyer comes they see pretty and clean puppies. The seller gives them a dog crate, dishes and a bag of food with each puppy. A neighbor happens to see the filthy dogs when out hunting and reports the situation. Is this a puppy mill? What law has been broken? Sadly it is possible no laws have been broken! 

Last scenario:
Breeder produces 20 litters of puppies a year. Breeder supplies dogs to the military on contract. Dogs are all health tested and genetics are carefully selected. There is an adjacent training facility. Dogs are all well cared for and have access to top veterinary care. Dogs are kept in kennel runs with indoor shelter access 24/7 unless being trained/worked. Is this a puppy mill? 

_Puppy mill needs to be CLEARLY defined and as of today it is not. Puppy mill is vague and subjective._

We love and are impassioned about dogs or we would not be on this forum. I know my dog is sentient. I also know that legally he is my property. I have registration papers, vet records, a bill of sale, a cancelled check, dog license and microchip that all indicate he is my _property_ in a court of law. If some one took him they would have committed Grand Theft which is a felony because my property is valued at over $1000.

If we slip to the Animal Rights genre we lose control of our dogs as property. The water in court becomes muddy indeed (as if it isn't muddy enough already!). As sentient beings with "rights" we no longer own dogs.. and we won't have them as pet, companion, sport or work partners. All that will become illegal since we do not own them as legal property. The slope becomes ever more slippery and, in the end, there will be no dogs at all (which is the ultimate intent of animal rights groups). 

Be careful what you wish for. Take off your Mantle of passion and think about this from an entirely dispassionate legal perspective. Clarity of definition is important. It really is. 

When you promote legislation to end "puppy mills" be aware of precision of definition. If you don't carefully evaluate the _unintended consequences of vaguery _the legislative action will most assuredly be misinterpreted at some point by a judge who hasn't a clue and never owned a dog. 

Dogs are our legal property in the U.S. Woe to the dog owners on that day this is no longer true. On that day the only ones to suffer will be the dogs.


----------



## Toedtoes (Sep 25, 2021)

*A "puppy mill" is a dog breeding operation in which the health of the dogs is disregarded in order to maintain a low overhead and maximize profits.*

It's really basic to determine a puppy mill based on this court definition.

For any scenario, ask the following questions:

1. Is it a breeding operation?

2. Is the health of the dogs disregarded for low overhead and maximum profits?

If both questions are answered yes, it's a puppy mill. If either question is answered no, it's not a puppy mill. Whether it is then a "good breeder" or a "bad breeder" is up for interpretation.

As it stands right now, there has been no need to define "puppy mill" in code. It's not illegal. As of now, legislation written to counter puppy mills has been focused on banning retail outlets from selling commercially bred dogs and cats and rabbits. This legislation doesn't specify puppy mills for a few reasons:

1. A commercial cat or rabbit breeding operation cannot be a puppy mill, but can be operated in the same way;

2. It stops people from breeding animals and selling them to pet stores - when I did adoptions, we had a woman who would bring us litters of kittens when the local pet stores were overstocked, she never stopped breeding her cat because there was always a chance to sell the kittens and a rescue group to take them otherwise. When our county enacted this legislation, she stopped breeding her cat because there was no chance of easy money out of it.

3. It stops retail stores from breeding their own stock. We had a local pet store that was doing this. With the enactment of the legislation, they could no longer do so because the animals must be "_obtained from a public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group, as defined, that is in a cooperative agreement with at least one private or public shelter, as specified._"

As for backyard breeders, that is not well defined. For me, I like wikipedia's definition:
_A *backyard breeder* is an amateur animal breeder whose breeding is considered substandard, with little or misguided effort towards ethical, selective breeding. Unlike puppy mills and other animal mill operations, backyard breeders breed on a small scale, usually at home with their own pets (hence the "backyard" description), and may be motivated by things such as monetary profit, curiosity, to gain new pets, or to show children "the miracle of birth"._

It makes a fairly clear differentiation from a "professional breeder". Again, there are good and bad breeders. I have met many backyard breeders over the years and their reasons for breeding are most often:

Everyone told me they would love a dog like her so I decided to breed her;

I needed some extra money, so I decided to breed him;

I really wanted one of her puppies, so I decided to breed her.

Some continue to breed, most often because they see it as easy money. Others stop at one litter when they realize doing it right requires a lot of work.


----------



## Toedtoes (Sep 25, 2021)

3GSD4IPO said:


> The slope becomes ever more slippery and, in the end, there will be no dogs at all (which is the ultimate intent of animal rights groups).


You can't use PETA as a basis for all animal rights groups. The majority don't want to eliminate dogs (or any other animal) they just want protections for them. PETA is extreme in their desire to do away with "pets", etc, and very few groups agree with that.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

There is a large difference between animal _welfare_ and animal _rights. _The minute you cease allowing pets to be _legal property_ and instead make them _sentient beings with rights_ you have entered the slippery slope where pet ownership will no longer exist. 

As to puppy mills what is considered "health of the dogs" and "disregarded?" While filthy, ill, underfed dogs would be obvious what about dogs that appear well cared for but have breed genetic disorders? This is still a subjective definition.

The lady with the cat selling kittens.. was the cat unhealthy? Were the kittens unhealthy? Was that a "mill?" 

I still think that education of the buying public is far better than legislating the breeding end of things. I also do not believe either of these routes (legislation or education) will eliminate poor breeding practices. 

What legislation usually does is regulate those who abide by it not eliminate those who skirt the law or flat out disobey the law. 

Eliminating purebred retail of puppies and kittens in pet stores has been replaced by "rescue" kittens and puppies and helped to create and support "retail rescue." The breeders are still there and they are still making money. They are simply doing it differently. 

Meanwhile I personally will continue to purchase my dogs from breeders. Like the OP I have had poor experiences with dog (and horse) rescues. Very few come across as legit (especially when it comes to horses) and most retain rights that I do not wish to partner with.


----------



## Khecha Wacipi (Oct 10, 2021)

3GSD4IPO said:


> I still think that education of the buying public is far better than legislating the breeding end of things. I also do not believe either of these routes (legislation or education) will eliminate poor breeding practices.


I agree with this. It is better than enacting laws, although the laws are also needed.
As I have been known to say, if everyone understood what they are supporting no one who likes animals would buy from a puppy mill. Education and raising the consciousness of the public is number one, no matter what aspect of human behavior you are trying to change. The Civil rights Act in the US was supposed to change things for people of color, but did it? Sure doesn't look like it to me. What is starting to change a few things 50 years later is that more people are becoming aware of the issues and problems and more people are changing their own attitudes.

I always believe that the best thing I can do to work towards righting a wrong in society is to do my best to be a good example and raise awareness and change attitudes in individual people I am in contact with. Laws only do so much in democratic societies. People's choices determine everything.

Having said that, I strongly believe that the laws about breeding animals need to be far more precise and terms need to be defined in detail, the way they are in other laws. And additionally, we need to have more people able and willing to reinforce those laws. I'd bet many of us here have reported something to Animal Control or the equivalent and had nothing done about it. Or not enough done about it. Or the animal confiscated, whereupon the person goes out the next day and gets another one to abuse.



3GSD4IPO said:


> What legislation usually does is regulate those who abide by it not eliminate those who skirt the law or flat out disobey the law.


Unfortunately, this is the case all too often. So we are back to helping individual people have better understanding of animals, what they need and how they feel, what constitutes abuse of animals, and what to do or not do in order to avoid abusing them or supporting people who abuse animals.



3GSD4IPO said:


> I still think that education of the buying public is far better than legislating the breeding end of things. I also do not believe either of these routes (legislation or education) will eliminate poor breeding practices.


I agree with this, although I want to see this happen_ and_ the laws to be changed, both. The thing is, without the first it is harder to change the laws. And without the first, fewer people will obey the law.

I am not in favor of trying to make the law recognize animal rights to the point of their not being property any longer. This is fraught with so many pitfalls it is not a good idea. I believe that without going that far, individuals can change their relationship to animals, and that is the point and the reason that anyone would want animals to be granted rights -- so people would have to see them differently.

On the other hand if the Rights to be granted were in the form of the right to be fed nutritious food regularly, to have time outdoors and live in a safe environment, to have health care when needed, to be treated with kindness and so on, then fine. 

But now you are back to the same problem we have now with both animals and human children: not enough people who give a damn, people who will break the law anyway, people who will hide what they are doing so no one knows, and not enough people to investigate these things or to take action on them. After all, children have rights and hundreds of thousands are abused in may ways, many for years without anyone knowing or doing anything about it, and even when authorities are alerted sometimes they do nothing or give the kids back into the abusive home.


----------



## Toedtoes (Sep 25, 2021)

I really don't understand why you have so much trouble with the definition of puppy mill.

If the only "health of the dog" consideration not provided is genetic testing then that doesn't meet the definition. It may be "bad breeding" but it's not a puppy mill. If the dog is kept clean and healthy and provided regular food and water and exercise and medical treatment when needed, then it is not a puppy mill - as the health of the dog is included in the overhead costs.

A puppy mill will NOT provide medical care, it will not clean up after the dog or exercise it or even feed and water it regularly. Those things cut into the profits. If a dog gets sick or injured, they will ignore the sickness/injury and continue to breed the dog until it's dead. The dead dog may be left in the cage for weeks or longer because no one checks on the dogs daily (that costs money).

It really isn't that difficult to determine. 

Your arguments are about the distinction between "reputable breeder" and "bad breeder" and not puppy mills. I agree that is far more subjective. I would like to see a more defined break between them - not necessarily in law, but at least an industry standard that includes things like:

Number of matings per dog per year (not just number of litters as some dogs may miscarriage)

Minimum size of enclosures

Minimum time for exercise (ie, time spent moving around freely, not in a crate)

Minimum number of health checks before, during, and after pregnancy and minimum number of health checks for males (eg, once a year health check for all dogs, health check prior to mating, minimum number of health checks of pregnant dogs, minimum number of health checks of puppies, health check of female after weaning)

And so on.

As it stands now, everyone has their own idea of what a bad breeder means and when we recommend "buy from a reputable breeder" it means nothing without a lot of added clarifications. An industry standard would provide a base for what a breeder should be.


----------



## Toedtoes (Sep 25, 2021)

@Khecha Wacipi I agree with much you say, but I would ask:

Would people now be changing their attitudes and seeing the problems for people of color (as well as women and homosexuals, etc) if the Civil Rights Act hadn't been passed?

Or did seeing the news reporting about lawsuits against companies for discrminating against people bring those problems into the forefront and force people start seeing them?

When it comes to discrmination and such, legislation is often more about forcing the issue into daily life in order to beget change than it is to simply force compliance. As such, it may take a long time for society to see the full effects. I was born about the time of the Civil Rights Act, so I grew up with the knowledge that discrimination was wrong. I still saw a ton of prejudices in my daily life, but I saw them AS prejudices rather than "the natural order of things". Because of that, it was easier for me to see the wrongness of the prejudice and discrimination. My children saw less prejudices and discrimation than I did, so when they do see it, they are far more likely to speak out about it. 

Animal rights (and welfare) is the same thing. Legislation has forced us to see the issues. It has given people the " backup" to speak out. It's a lot harder to speak out against abuse when you are just voicing an opinion. Being able to cite a law or legal precedent makes it much easier.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

Mod hat: I'm going to ask that we not bring human rights issues into this discussion, as there's an extremely high risk of things getting very messy and violating forum rules regarding discussion of politics and respectful language. Please keep the debate focused on dogs, puppy mills, and the legislation surrounding those issues, otherwise the mods will have to close this thread.


----------



## LeoRose (Aug 20, 2015)

A lot of the things that make a breeding operation a puppy mill are easy to identify, even if they aren't clearly defined in legal terms. Poor living conditions are just part of it. Not caring about health (physical, mental, or genetic), selling puppies with no further concern for their futures beyond the check clearing, and producing large amounts of puppies are also considerations. Other things are less easy to see, but there are several people considered reputable that I wouldn't take a dog from if they paid me.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

> I really don't understand why you have so much trouble with the definition of puppy mill.


The reason is that those who enforce the laws in the judiciary are not the dog knowledgeable people we are. Even with CLEAR evidence the unknowledgeable or politically motivated judge will muck it up.

I was a Right of Way Acquisition person for several years. My job was to aquire property for highway and bridge projects through Eminent Domain by establishing fair market value for lands and buildings.. sometimes homes and businesses.. taken for the project. 

Sometimes the Government would get taken to court. The person taking the Gvt. to court could not stop the project or their land from being taken. They could sue for more compensation (money) (Court of Claims). 

Going to court the judge would get two real.estate appraisals. Both claimant and defendant would have exchanged appraisal reports before going in front of the judge on the assigned court date. Often the monetary difference in value in each appraisal was not that great. 

The judge usually would not be versed in appraisal practice or what made a either appraisal bad or good. He or she would hear both sides arguments then make a determination of final value. The Government rarely won.. and not because they had a bad appraisal or a bad defense. 

They would lose because the judge would render an opinion that referenced NEITHER appraisal and come up with "something" that could never be supported by any appraisal standards. I have seen judges go wildly off the rails and make awards that were both grossly inflated above fair market value with absolutely no bearing in reality grossly overpaying the plaintiff... 
.... the reason being the plaintiff hired a law firm that the judge "knew" ad that judge was bent on rewarding that law firm! The judge knew the law firm would get most of the settlement, the plaintiff would get a little more than what the Government had initially offered. Everyone went home happy while I'd be like "what just happened?" 

I have seen the results of vaguery in legislation (different job) and unintended consequences of that vaguery when someone with an agenda twisted things to their great advantage! 

Now we have someone charged with animal cruelty and running a puppy mill in front of a judge who knows nothing about dogs but DOES know animal cases are high profile. Judge wants to be re-elected.. and uses the vaguery of the law to grandstand the case and squash the "puppy mill." 

Meanwhile the reality is the breeder does a good job but had one old sick dog that died in her kennel. A person saw the one dog took a photo. In the photo there is another run visible and there are two piles of dog poop visible. The photo was posted to social media... and you know the rest of the story. That breeder was HUNG by that unknowledgeable judge who last had contact with a dog as a 6 year old visiting Grandma. 

Puppy Mill should be clearly DEFINED. This means run dimensions, shelter dimensions, cleanliness requirements, clean water and food availability, numbers of dogs/litters in residence, regular vet visits (at least annual) etc. etc. all need to be defined first.. ot is a large task and most legislators won't embrace it. They simply say "ban puppy mills" followed by a poor definition and unintended consequences.. sometimes far reaching.. and the Legislators being re-elected.


----------



## Khecha Wacipi (Oct 10, 2021)

Toedtoes said:


> I really don't understand why you have so much trouble with the definition of puppy mill.
> 
> If the only "health of the dog" consideration not provided is genetic testing then that doesn't meet the definition. It may be "bad breeding" but it's not a puppy mill. If the dog is kept clean and healthy and provided regular food and water and exercise and medical treatment when needed, then it is not a puppy mill - as the health of the dog is included in the overhead costs.


I don't think anyone here has a problem with defining a puppy mill! 
I think we could together write the legal definition and not leave out anything.

I think the problem is that the _law_ doesn't define puppy mill well enough.

There is too much wiggle room in the legal definition, and that allows for all kinds of loop holes and places where people can get away with things and judges get flummoxed because, as 3GSD pointed out, they don't know dogs.

Legalese is a drag when you have to plough through it in a contract you need to sign, but it's used for a very good reason. the purpose is to close all possible loop holes, and all possibilities for creating loop holes, and make the contract air tight. That is also how some wills, trusts, and laws are written, which is what makes them so long and to non-lawyers sometimes incomprehensible. But if the puppy mill laws were written that solidly we would have more to stand on to eradicate them.

Although, as I said and as with every law, we would need the human-power to enforce those laws. There are plenty of laws. But also plenty of crime. More laws don't change that, but better enforcement of well considered and well written laws can change that.


----------



## Toedtoes (Sep 25, 2021)

Other than basic traffic laws, the vast majority of laws are written with a certain amount of vagueness, whether intentionally or not. It is par for the course for a couple reasons:

The writers didn't think it through. In this case, court cases will establish precedent and make clear the need for additional legislation to tighten loopholes; and

The writers feel that being too specific makes it too easy for people to avoid the law. For example, by stating a specific number of dogs, the operation could simply keep one less dog than required and be in every other way a "puppy mill" without legally being subject to the law. By allowing some vaguary, they give some leeway to the courts to apply the law in such cases.

If puppy mills are banned, there will be a code defining "puppy mill". It will most likely be based on the court definition above. That is standard procedure when writing laws. How detailed it will be will depend on the writers and the actual focus of the law. 

Currently laws have been limited to retail stores obtaining the animals, not the actual breeding practices. So, again, no need to legally define the term "puppy mill".

As of now, the fight to ban puppy mills is in its infancy. It hasn't really gotten past the concept. As it does, terms will be defined and details written in. This is again standard practice in writing laws.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

l don't think it'd be so difficult as all that to write reasonable and effective anti-puppy mill legislation. "Puppy mill" doesn't even need to be defined, IMO - the point is to end common forms of abuse and neglect that occur in puppy mills, not to eliminate the commercial breeding of dogs altogether. It'd be easy enough to just expand on on what's already done with commercial livestock. The real difficulty would be in enforcement, as stepping up enforcement would require more inspectors and inspectors cost money, as does building and pursuing cases against offenders.

A basic outline of what I'd suggest...the finer points can be quibbled, but just as a start:

Facilities with over X number of dogs on site or producing more than Y number of litters per year are subject to regulation and inspection by law enforcement and/or the USDA.
All dogs on site must have veterinary clearances annually
Clear regulations about the minimum dimensions and structure of crates/dog boxes, and a requirement for daily turn-out and routine cleaning of crates/runs
Requirements for daily nutrition, fresh water availability, and consistent temperature regulation
A minimum staff to animal ratio
Escalating consequences if the above requirements are not met, and/or if dogs are found with serious matting, very overgrown nails, untreated infections, etc. (i.e. start with order to correct, then levy fines and seize the neglected animals, then proceed to more serious civil and/or criminal penalties for repeat offenders)
A facility that's a legit larger-scale breeding/training program (e.g. producing MWDs) should be able to easily meet such requirements.

Would some people still, by secrecy or by playing games with the letter of the law, still do shady things? Sure, but that's the case with any legislation. The point is to provide a tool so prevent and prosecute the egregious mass abuses committed by mills, and to pressure kennel owners to stay within the quantity of dogs they can actually afford - financially and time-wise - to provide proper care for. (Note that this would also help address those "rescue-borders-on-hoarding" situations that occasionally arise.)


----------



## Khecha Wacipi (Oct 10, 2021)

parus said:


> The real difficulty would be in enforcement,


So true. And that is of course the problem with many laws.

The law in place for many things (although not for puppy mills etc.) is often quite sufficient but the enforcement is not. People don't like what happens, so they clamor for more laws but that's not the solution, enforcement of what already exists is.


----------



## Toedtoes (Sep 25, 2021)

It also has to do with WHO enforces the law. In the case of animals, it's the USDA and they have not only not enforced the existing laws due to staffing deficiencies, they have chosen to ignore and/or minimize violations when they did find them. There was a whole investigation done by the Inspector General's Office in about 2010. The USDA's argument was that they were focusing on education not penalties. Unfortunately for the dogs, that meant the USDA investigators failed to document violations and ignored repeat offenders and offenses - even when the violations consisted of canine cannibalism and multiple dead dogs found rotting in the facilitiy's filth.

Kennel licenses have been generally required for breeders selling to retail outlets only. In recent years, since the ban on retail sales of dogs and cats, jurisdictions are expanding kennel licensing for all breeders with more than X dogs. My county and the one next to us did that. Unscrupulous breeders "sold" their breeding stock to people retaining full breeding rights (and other rights) as a way to get around the kennel license requirement. Since they don't house the dogs on their property and have "sold" the dogs, they don't need the license. My co-worker above got his dog from one of these. They also sold the females and required the owners to house the puppies to keep their "official" numbers from going up. They bred labradoodles and purposely chose the same kennel name as a local reputable labrador breeder. I spoke with the lab breeder and it was very frustrating for them. 

Now, they are not a puppy mill and honestly, any puppy mill dog being sold like this would be in far better hands than staying with the puppy mill. But if we want to legislate breeders in general, we do have to consider the contracted breeding rights of the puppies in the picture.

As for cage/kennel sizes, the USDA does mandate the minimum crate size for dogs at laboratory facilities. The USDA Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Chapter 1, Subchapter A—Animal Welfare– Part 3, Standards, dictates the amount of space needed for a “primary enclosure” for a canine as:

measurement of animal nose to tail, plus 6 inches, X measurement of animal nose to tail, plus 6 inches = the required floor space in square inches. To determine the required floor space in square feet, divide the square inches by 144.

I found this interesting and so I did some calculations based on Tornado-dog. This is what I calculated:

48 inches long tip of nose to tail

48 + 6 = 54
54*54 = 2916 sq inches

2916 ÷ 144 = 20.25 sq feet

So, if Tornado-dog was in a research facility being experimented on, he would be required by law to be in a 20.25 sq foot enclosure AT MINIMUM for the bulk of his time.

After calculating that, I actually looked at the common crate sizing recommendations for home use and calculated those measurements. According to the instructions, these measurements are the recommended length for a crate for the dog.

Tornado-dog's measurements are:
Tip of nose to tip of tail = 48 inches
Tip of nose to base of tail = 34 inches
Tip of nose to base of tail plus 1/2 length of front leg from armpit to toe = 42.5

And then I looked at the common crate square footage of crates within those recommended lengths:

36 inch crate (the smallest recommended for Tornado-dog according to his length measurement):
36 * 23 = 828 sq inches ÷ 144 = 5.75 sq feet

42 inch crate (the size recommended based on his weight of 50lbs):
42 * 28 = 1176 sq inches ÷ 144 = 8.167 sq feet

48 inch crate (the size meeting the largest "how to size a crate" calculation):
48 * 30 = 1440 sq inches ÷ 144 = 10.00 sq feet

54 inch crate (the length size based on the USDA measurement for the dog's length):
54 * 37 = 1998 sq inches ÷ 144 = 13.875 sq feet

Now here is the kicker.

The 36 inch crate is only 28.4% of the USDA requirement.
The 42 inch crate is only 40.3% of the USDA requirement.
The 48 inch crate is only 49.5% of the USDA requirement.
And the 54 inch crate is only 68.5% of the USDA requirement.

In addition, the 48 inch crate is recommended for breeds like GSD, akita and newfie and the 54 inch crate is recommended for breeds like great dane, st bernard, and mastiff. The 42 inch crate is recommended for a border collie which is the breed I would consider as equal to Tornado-dog's size.

So, if we legislate minimum crate sizes for all breeders, should we not also do the same for pet owners who are more likely to crate their dogs. Few responsible breeders I know actually crate their dogs. They tend to use kennels (which are most always larger than the USDA laboratory requirements) to separate the dogs. 

I also think a minimum time period per every 24 hours where the dog is required to be out of the crate and in an area big enough for the dog to exercise and freely move about should be mandated.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

The difference between a crate for a lab animal and a crate for a pet is like the difference between a jail cell and a crib or car seat - it's not analogous. A lab animal will spend almost all of its life in that crate. A pet should only be confined for limited periods, for safety, management, medical, training or transportation purposes. Sizing up pet crates would limit their utility for some of these purposes (e.g. they wouldn't fit in the back of vehicles, wouldn't be a good housetraining tool, etc).

There are definitely pet owners that overuse crates and need to come up with alternative ways of safely confining animals that need safe confinement, of course. You don't leave the baby lying in its crib or strapped into a car seat for endless waking hours.

I would also argue that the government has much less business intervening in the running of a private home than it does in a commercial enterprise or similar.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Toedtoes said:


> It also has to do with WHO enforces the law. In the case of animals, it's the USDA and they have not only not enforced the existing laws due to staffing deficiencies, they have chosen to ignore and/or minimize violations when they did find them. There was a whole investigation done by the Inspector General's Office in about 2010. The USDA's argument was that they were focusing on education not penalties. Unfortunately for the dogs, that meant the USDA investigators failed to document violations and ignored repeat offenders and offenses - even when the violations consisted of canine cannibalism and multiple dead dogs found rotting in the facilitiy's filth.


Part of the issue that the USDA doesn't really differentiate between pet/working animals and livestock for most purposes, and the conditions allowed for livestock are frankly horrific. I'm not opposed to meat (or eggs and dairy, for that matter) consumption in theory, but those industries in the US are grotesque as practiced on typical factory farms. So basically there's two ways to go about getting that changed - one can argue that dogs require better conditions than, say, pigs (a rather difficult case to make, IMO) and try to get them into a special class of animals designated for better treatment, or one can push for reforms of factory farming conditions in general (which would be hugely unpopular because meat prices will rise).


----------



## Poppy14 (Apr 13, 2017)

IMO, the biggest problem with puppy mills is the people who support them. Some may not know better, but many are just like the OP - they flat out didn't care.

Sure, he had some issues with rescues (though most of what he claimed the rescue wanted seems very reasonable to me). But he certainly had other avenues. Could have gone to a reputable breeder. Could have gone to a city shelter where they are begging people to take dogs. Could have literally gone to a backyard breeder. But no, he deliberately went to a puppy mill. Way to stick it to the man, I guess?


----------



## Quinsation (Aug 1, 2017)

When I was looking for a puppy last year (lost a dog to cancer and wanted another agility partner) Our local shelters were having a hard time getting puppies.
I filled out so many applications from all over the US. I heard back from maybe 3.
I ended up getting a puppy off craigslist, then adopted a 1 1/2 year old dog from an Adoptable Sport Dog page on FB.
That said, IF either of our local shelters had a puppy that fit my list, I would have gone that route. 
I have a good relationship with both shelters so adopting thru them is super easy. 
The first shelter, I adopted from 10 years ago, filled out a 3 page application and got an awesome puppy. Then about 5 years ago, they had a senior dog that had been overlooked for months. I inquired about him and since they know what I did with the puppy, they were more than happy for us to adopt him. It was basically, if he gets along with your other dogs, sign here, he's yours.
With the other shelter, a friend is their executive director, another friend does their transfers (he was actually looking for agility prospects for me) and I would be able to skip a lot of their 'required' stuff.

Some rescues are WAY to picky about who they adopt it. I know a retired couple that do agility. They were looking for a puppy and were turned down several times w/o good reason. They own their own home, on 15 acres, have secure kennels, rarely leave their dogs home alone, go thru a lot of training with their dogs, etc. They did finally end up with a great dog, but were turned down multiple times first.


----------



## Khecha Wacipi (Oct 10, 2021)

It is easy to criticize rescues for their policies. But the thing is we do not know why they made those policies. I agree that some policies (like, we have to have full access to your home from now on to check on the dog) are completely overboard and intrusive and I myself would not agree to them.
But many of the other policies are in place because the rescue have experienced something that caused them to make the policy in that manner.

Home checks, for instance. I have written before about how people say one thing and you find something completely different when you get there. these checks are necessary unless the person applying is known to the rescue.

The long process of application and approval is unfortunate when it happens that way because it does turn people off. But I always like to remind people that rescues are run on a volunteer basis by people with jobs and families and lives to lead and sometimes they get backed up through no fault of their own. It is important to be patient.

And when someone is turned down "w/o good reason" there is always going to be a good reason. Unless the rescue is run by someone with a vendetta against the person applying, the reason is more likely to be because of the dog. In the case of the people mentioned in the post above, from the sounds of it the reason was unlikely to be that they people were not good prospective dog owners. It is far more likely that the rescue or the foster home felt that particular dog would be more likely to thrive in a different kind of environment. 

It is very important to remember that for a rescue (a good one, that is) the well being of that specific dog is always the #1 concern. I have turned down a prospective adopter for my foster dog because that dog did not seem happy around that person, or I just got a feeling or had information that told me that my foster dog would do better in a different kind of home. It doesn't always mean the adopter is not a good dog person. 

Rescues are run by people and we can make mistakes. But as I say I want to remind people that everything rescues do is in service to the dog.


----------



## cbells (Aug 13, 2012)

I am an avid believer in adoption not shopping. But I totally get it. It's always been tough to adopt a dog (due to response times and other things you've listed), which can be an insane emotional rollercoaster. You write in about a dog, sometimes get your hopes up and then suddenly it's gone, or they stop responding, or they give it to someone else. At certain points I've joked that I could save all the dogs in the world by putting in applications to adopt for each of them, since every dog I put in an application for got adopted by someone else.

I adopted last year after the death of my other dog. I got crazy lucky. Someone in the comments section of a post on a community forum mentioned they were fostering a poodle. I messaged them, and they said they "had a good feeling about me" and told the rescue to prioritize my application. The rescue volunteer told me, "honestly, we have hundred of applications for every dog, and we don't even know where to start." So, basically I only got reviewed because the foster just said "hey look at this person's application" and it simply gave them somewhere to start. 

Also, because my dog had only died 6 weeks ago, I still had a dog walker, dog food, dog beds and supplies, and when they asked me what I would do if the dog got sick, I replied that I had just spent $15,000 the past year on vet bills for my dog, and countless hours coaxing him to take 30 pills per day. I also own my apartment, which is rare in NYC, so no dealing with landlords or the possibility of not being able to find pet-friendly housing. My references were my dog walkers of 6+ years, one a professional dog trainer. I am 33 y/o with no kids and no other pets. I was a shoe-in. 

I empathize with the many people who have admitted to me that they bought a dog, because I know how hard it is to adopt. I know I got extremely lucky, and happen to be in a perfect circumstance.


----------



## Poppy14 (Apr 13, 2017)

It's interesting, some rescues get lots of applications and some get very few. Just like some have off the wall requirements and others have very reasonable ones, and some seem to have none at all (for the record, I still think the listed requirements that the OP gave are perfectly reasonable).

I used to be very pro-adoption as well; my Spaniel boy is adopted and we actually were able to skirt one of his rescue's requirements - they required all dogs in the home be fixed but we had one that could not be due to medical concerns, I explained that and they were very understanding. That said, my boy has a ton of issues due to poor breeding and early life trauma and I will most likely go through a reputable breeder next time, though I will eventually rescue again.


----------



## storyist (Sep 19, 2019)

Edit: Sorry about the strikeout through most of this post. I didn't put it there and can't seem to get rid of it.

I doubt anyone who hasn't done rescue will ever understand the anxiety of letting a dog go to a supposedly lovely home after you've been burned a few times. I went into it knowing I would dislike the people giving up dogs for reasons like "moving," but in the end, it was adoption applicants who contributed the most to my burnout. Too many lie and exaggerate. People who claimed to have had dogs all their lives did things so incredibly stupid it was hard to believe.

This was Rottweiler rescue mind you, so only Rotties and Rottie mixes. I started out thinking I'd adopt dogs who were really easy going to people with children if they knew and were willing to shoulder the necessary burden of supervising their kid with the dog. Then I'd take the dog to the home, watch the kid tease the dog and the parent do nothing. I had two cases of people who got in trouble letting their kids constantly take chew toys from the dog. One called for advice the first time the dog growled, got it, and straightened up. The other cost the dog its life when it bit the mother for trying to take a chew. At least he bit the guilty party.

As to the perfect home -- in the 30s no kids, no other pets, etc., I adopted to one of those once. She was actually in her late 30s. She married the year after that, a guy the dog didn't like. Then they had a baby and the dog growled at the guy every time he held the baby. Millie, who was one of the sweetest dogs that ever lived, who had a known background of abuse and scars to prove it, who had no problems with any other man, including vets, came back to me and lived the rest of her life with me.

Or how about the people who took a dog on a trial adoption. They had references from their vet, had had dogs all their lives, fenced property they owned. They were a little insulted when I made them sign an agreement that not only did they have to want the dog after having her for a month, but I could take the dog back if I didn't think the home a good fit, but went ahead. The DAY AFTER they got the dog, they took her to the Colorado mountains and let her loose to "test her." Lucky for the dog, she passed the test (probably luckier there were no deer in that area that day) and didn't run off, because failing would have meant a slow and ugly death lost in the mountains. They resisted letting me take the dog back. If I hadn't insisted on the signed agreement....

It's not that there aren't a lot of wonderful people looking to adopt dogs, it's that there are all too many borderline and just plain awful people, and sorting the wheat from the chaff is an anxiety-producing, emotional tightrope. I abandoned it after 10 years and wouldn't do it again for love nor money. Those who can keep it up have my thanks and admiration.

I know enough breeders to know that they have the same problems. There's a reason the breeder of my current puppy won't sell to people with kids. You can criticize that policy all you want. I understand it and sympathize with it. And no, you can't control what happens after the original sale, but then you can't control divorce, job loss and bankruptcy or death either. Two breeders I know had to take dogs back for abuse and both consider themselves lucky to have found out about it and to have been able to get their hands on the dog. It's all an emotional roller coaster.


----------



## Toedtoes (Sep 25, 2021)

On this forum, there are a lot of current and past fosters. They are knowledgeable about dogs and people savvy. They also mostly volunteer(ed) with breed rescues.

I volunteered with a general rescue. They did mostly cats with some dogs. They were always short volunteers and those they had, while well meaning, were often clueless about dogs. Over the years, I saw volunteers who:

Let the dog eat off their plates (WHILE they ate), let the dog jump in and out of a broken window.

Try to adopt a dog who had bitten before, and didn't like being touched, to families with small kids.

Not even ask the potential adopter any questions - just simply "fill out this form, pay the fee and take the animal home".

Feed the potential adopter the answers to the group's filter questions.

We even had one foster whose foster cat had an accident in the carrier in the car so she used a hose to spray down the carrier WITH THE CAT IN IT.

And those were just the bad ones. Many others just didn't know enough about dogs to understand that huskies are escape artists or border collies need jobs and such. They saw all dogs as calm gentle creatures who just needed A home - rather than individuals with a wide range of personalities and energy levels who needed the RIGHT home. 

So, many of these rules are not just meant to weed out bad homes, but to minimize volunteers making bad decisions.

For me, because I knew dogs (and cats) and had a very good "bull meter", I was able to bend the rules a bit. None of my animals were returned (except one cat who I got pressured by other volunteers into adopting her out to a woman I just felt off about - and I was right in a horribly major way). I often told my adopters after the process was complete "don't worry, you won't be getting a home check. I may give you a call in a few weeks to see how things are going, but I won't show up at your door." 

I also only took in as many fosters as I could handle no matter how much they wanted me to take "just one more". Because of that, I never felt a need to "get that dog adopted". I only had one dog that drove me nuts - a 6 month old black lab. She was very very hyper and could not sleep through the night unless I crated her AND put a blanket over the crate because at the first sign of a cat moving, she was up and running. I was just setting up a trade with another foster when the perfect home walked in to the adoption day. A young couple who loved outdoor activities, both grew up in " lab families" and they were very capable of handling a hyper lab puppy.


----------



## Khecha Wacipi (Oct 10, 2021)

cbells said:


> It's always been tough to adopt a dog (due to response times and other things you've listed), which can be an insane emotional rollercoaster. You write in about a dog, sometimes get your hopes up and then suddenly it's gone,


The reason for this is that they have to have time to process the paperwork and approve you for adoption.
I always tell people, do not wait until you see a dog you like! Put in your application as soon as you think you want to adopt a dog and go through the approval process so that you will be all ready to go when the dog you like comes available.

It's the same as, don't wait until your dream house appears on the market and_ then_ go looking for a mortgage company! It only makes sense, but people need to be reminded that with a rescue they can't just see the dog and get the dog the same week. If you are not already approved then yes, the dog will probably be gone by the time you are.



cbells said:


> The rescue volunteer told me, "honestly, we have hundred of applications for every dog, and we don't even know where to start."


And this happens as well. When it does, the rescue has to take a look at all those applications and start weeding them out. In doing this they will of course say no to many excellent prospective homes, but if there's one dog and 100 people, obviously only one gets the dog.

To me, this doesn't mean "it's hard to adopt", and it really bothers me that someone would think this way or say it on a forum where it might discourage people from going through the process.

I get where you are coming from in one way but being on the other side I wish people understood more about it and were patient. I always say - this will be your companion for maybe the next 10 or 15 years. It is worth a little bit of a wait to get the right one. And so much better than buying a dog when there are hundreds of thousands of good dogs that need homes. 

I also like to remind people that in most cities there are a dozen or more rescues. In a place like NYC there are probably 50 rescues. Or more. If I lived there and wanted a dog I would put in an application to every single one of them, except the ones that were specific breed rescues for a breed I knew I did not want. That will increase your chances.

And of course, there are the shelters, which any major city has also in abundance. The process at most shelters is much less stringent, which in a way is good - the animals get adopted faster, and in another way is not good because bad people adopt dogs from shelters and abuse them in many ways.

there's no perfect world, and we are all trying to do our best to find as many good homes for the dogs as we can. but the operative word here is good, and in order to do that we can't just hand out the dogs to the first people who come. I am sure you understand this.


----------



## Khecha Wacipi (Oct 10, 2021)

Toedtoes, what bad experiences! I am horrified that you have had to work with such clueless people in a rescue organization of all things.

I guess I have been lucky in that the rescues I have worked with are very diligent with making sure the foster homes are suitable and the people fostering the dog are careful with placement of the dog. To be a foster home you had to go through as stringent an application as to adopt, unless you were known to the rescue or came in with an excellent reputation and recommendation from another rescue (which I happened to have). 

I have turned down applicants who wanted to foster dogs when I went to do the home check, same as turning down adoption applicants. Fostering is not an easy job! You get this dog about whom you know nothing and need to do all you can to understand the dog as fast as possible so that you can train them and get them into a good home so the next one can come. I have had foster dogs for two weeks and for a year and a half. I never let one go until I was certain that A) the dog was completely ready for it and B) that the people in front of me were the right home for that particular dog's personality and needs.

I have seen some terrible things in my life in terms of animal abuse. Things that, if you have not seen them, you should feel lucky you didn't see. Some of them will haunt me for the rest of my life. And I have seen well meaning people do terrible things because they were simply ignorant -- but the dog is the one who suffered as a result.

People talk about how long it takes to be accepted as a foster home for human children, or to adopt a human child. This is as it should be and I doubt anyone would say it isn't. I see no reason at all that dogs should not be afforded the same careful consideration and protection.


----------



## Toedtoes (Sep 25, 2021)

Khecha Wacipi said:


> I always tell people, do not wait until you see a dog you like! Put in your application as soon as you think you want to adopt a dog and go through the approval process so that you will be all ready to go when the dog you like comes available.


This is especially true when adopting puppies. When I was looking for Tornado-dog, I would see a litter of puppies show up on the shelter/rescue website first thing in the morning. I would submit my application within 5 minutes and all the puppies would already be adopted. You have to submit your application ahead of time and just put "young puppy" on it. And hope that whoever reviews the applications sees something in your app that stands out.

I got lucky with Tornado-dog. I had submitted my app for a different litter, who were already adopted, but the person in charge really liked my application. So she gave me a heads up on another litter that would be available in a few weeks. I was able to submit a new application and schedule the first adoption appointment for the day the puppies came available. I got pick of the litter. 

The puppies weren't put online until the night before they became available and all the adoption appointments for that day were already booked. By the end of the day, all the adoptions were finalized.


----------



## Toedtoes (Sep 25, 2021)

Khecha Wacipi said:


> Toedtoes, what bad experiences! I am horrified that you have had to work with such clueless people in a rescue organization of all things.


This was in the 90s. I think there are more volunteers today than then. We were really hard put to find people willing to foster. Now, many people will do "foster to adopt". And folks see fostering as a good alternative for owning a dog. So rescues have more room to be selective. In those days, fosters were still very much seen as "crazy cat ladies".

Back then, I was the only person in my workplace who fostered. Two years ago, there were three people (not including me) in my smaller workplace who fostered. And they were all married and one was male. Major change.


----------



## Khecha Wacipi (Oct 10, 2021)

"Foster to adopt" is a really good way for a prospective adopter to do a trial run with a dog, if the rescue has such a program. I especially like it for people who have not previously owned a dog, because they will usually get tons of support and help from the rescue organization (although the one I work with gives that to any adopter as well), and if things turn out not to be OK the dog can simply be put on the available for adoption list. 
Of course any reputable rescue organization will take back a dog, but foster-to-adopt is a softer landing.


----------



## Toedtoes (Sep 25, 2021)

I agree. It also allows for another animal to come into the system.


----------



## Uncle Foster (Mar 27, 2012)

Hey Daniel Park, man, how'd you get to be so smart?
I tell you, that guy Daniel Park he's a gentleman and a scholar.

Rember, you read it here first.

Uncle Foster


----------

