Accompanying me was a Humane Society of the United States
investigator who had monitored the Pennsylvania mills for years. He
knew the county well, and had seen not only the proliferation of puppy
mills in the area, but at the same time, the increased press and public
attention in their operations.
Driving through the pastoral landscape, it seemed impossible
that animal suffering could exist amidst such beauty. This illusion
was quickly shattered with my first view of a puppy mill. For years, I
had seen and studied photos of infamous facilities, but nothing prepared
me for seeing the real thing with my own eyes.
We approached a farmhouse from the road and turned onto a muddy
lane. Rounding the corner, we didn't even have to get out of the truck
to see or hear what awaited us. Rows of dilapidated cages were lined up
outside a barn. Stopping the truck, my throat constricted with shock.
Dogs were crammed three or more to a small cage which were elevated over
mounds of feces. Matted fur covered their eyes as they rushed towards
the front of their cages, barking at uninvited visitors. Their plight
was so dramatically different than the dogs I knew, the dogs who lie
lazily in afternoon sun, waiting for their next meal or walk. No, these
dogs were here for a purpose and only one purpose: to make money.
We saw many mills that day. Posing as buyers, we were able to
handle and examine some of the puppies. Many seemed sickly,
disoriented, and underweight. And when we were allowed to see their
mothers, or sneaked onto a farm to view the conditions, the hopelessness
of their lives weighed on me like a heavy load that rests on my
shoulders even to this day.
Dogs hold a special place in our hearts. Domesticated thousands
of years ago, they were chosen to be our protectors, companions, and
best friends. And although we have betrayed our responsibility towards
them in many ways, none is so distressing or disturbing as the puppy
mill.
The term "puppy mill," coined in the mid-to-late
sixties to describe large scale commercial dog breeding facilities, has
only recently arrived in the mainstream vernacular. It is a term that
some claim is sensational and manipulative. The word "mill"
refers to an operation that churns out dogs in mass, using female dogs
as nothing more than breeding machines. The term conjures images of
dogs crowded in wire cages, living in their own wastes, shivering from
the cold, or baking in the heat. Tragically, this vision is not far
from reality. Most people, not just those interested in animal
protection, are shocked when confronted with the bleak images of dogs
housed and bred in puppy mills. But in the 5,000 puppy mills found
across the country, thousands of dogs are bred and raised for profit,
valued not for their companionship or loyalty, but for the cold hard
cash they bring.
Many consumers possess an image of puppies at a family farm,
lovingly raised and cared for. Others may not even think about where a
pet store puppy comes from. Drawn to a pet store window by a bin of
wriggling puppies, the furthest thing from a customer's mind is the
origin of these cute bundles of fur. But by buying a puppy, often for a
price of $500 or more, the consumer is unknowingly supporting a cycle of
abuse that begins at the puppy mill.
What the consumer can't see is the puppy's mother, imprisoned
miles away, pregnant again, her body being used to produce more
money-making puppies. Starting at six months, she is bred every heat
cycle. She is often weak, malnourished, and dehydrated. Rarely, if
ever, is she provided with veterinary care. She cannot maintain her
productivity past her fourth or fifth year. After that, she is nothing
more than a drain on the mill's operation and must be disposed of. If
she's lucky, she'll be humanely euthanized. More often than not, she
will be shot or bludgeoned to death. Discarded, her wasted body will
lie forgotten in a local landfill or garbage dump.
This is the picture the pet stores will never show. And until
recently, the ugly truth of puppy mills has been hidden. But when
problems with many of the puppies bought at pet stores across the
country began to surface, consumers and animal lovers alike began asking
hard questions. Puppies with seizures, parasites, infections, bacteria,
and behavioral problems were being seen far too often to be merely
coincidental.
Puppy mills and the pet store industry have begun to feel this
scrutiny. They insist that it doesn't make good business sense to sell
sick puppies or house breeding females in less than humane conditions.
But evidence gained after years of documentation and investigation
directly conflicts with these assertions. In addition, those small
scale breeders who do treat their animals humanely, who raise them in
their homes or in small, cleanly kept kennels, do not usually make a
profit off their dogs. It is virtually impossible to breed in a humane
fashion and make money at the same time. Although a pet store may sell
a puppy for $500 or more dollars, most commercial breeders can only get
around $35 per dog from a broker who in turns sells to the pet store for
around $75. In order to make a profit and cover costs, corners must be
cut, and puppies must be churned out at a furious rate. The cut corners
are the animals themselves: their housing, their health, their
cleanliness. Inherent in the profit-making mills is the sacrifice of
humane standards in order to make a profit.
What protection, if any, do these dogs and their puppies have?
On the state level, puppy "lemon laws," existing in a handful
of states including New Jersey and California, seek to offer consumers
protection against buying sick puppies. Although these laws do chip
away at the production of sick puppies, they do not address the inherent
problem of the whole system: the selling of dogs for profit.
The federal level offers even less hope. The current system not
only allows the continuation of a business that makes money off the
backs of dogs, but fails in its responsibility to provide even a basic
quality of life for dogs in puppy mills. Originally passed in 1966, the
federal Animal Welfare Act was amended in 1970 to include in its
provisions the oversight of large scale commercial dog breeding
facilities. Regulations were written with the intention of ensuring the
proper care, feeding, housing, and veterinary care for the thousands of
dogs found in puppy mills across the country. Mandated by law to
enforce these regulations is the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA). But with a shortage of inspectors responsible for overseeing
these facilities, the agency has developed a reputation for failing to
meet its mandate.
Not only have outsiders criticized the agency's ability to
enforce the Act in relation to puppy mills, but several internal reviews
have also illustrated the gross inadequacies existing at the federal
level. Recently, a damning internal review conducted by the USDA's own
office of the Inspector General of the agency's South Central Regional
Office offered a bleak picture. The South Central Office, responsible
for overseeing the majority of this country's puppy mills, was found to
be sorely lacking in its ability to enforce the Animal Welfare Act. The
report found that the office failed to respond to complaints from the
public, failed to report a large number of blatant violations of the
law, and that supervisors told inspectors not only where and when to
inspect, but instructed their staff not to write up too many violations
of problematic facilities. USDA Secretary Dan Glickman, embarrassed by
the report's finding, has demanded the development of an internal plan
to respond to the crisis within the agency.
The USDA is also feeling the heat over the puppy mill issue from
members of Congress. After receiving constituent mail on puppy mills,
Congressman Glenn Poshard (D-Il) and Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA),
sprung to action. Working with The Humane Society of the United States
and other animal protection organizations, they gathered over 100
signatures from members on both side of Capitol Hill in a letter to
Secretary Glickman expressing concern about the problems found in puppy
mills across the country. Sent late last summer, the letter has caused
anxiety within the USDA.
This Spring, the agency will consider enacting stronger regulations covering puppy mills as well as examining ways in which their enforcement powers can be increased. Although any change in the way puppy mills are regulated is an improvement, and stiffer rules may even shut down or discourage potential operators from opening a facility, the changes will not directly eliminate the mills themselves. Until the demand for mass-produced pet store puppies decreases, there will always be a buck to be made in the production of dogs.