The Humane Society and puppy mills
Following the purchase of a puppy for $3000 from a pet store on my last post, the Humane Society director of outreach for companion animals issued this statement:
"Ms. Spears is setting a damaging example to the public," she said in her statement. "Most dogs sold in pet stores come from puppy mills -- factory-like facilities, churning out purebred and 'designer' puppies in large numbers.”
And yet the Humane Society supported California’s mandatory spay and neuter bill which was recently tabled. It would give exemptions to large scale breeders and pet stores.
If the Humane Society opposes puppy mills so adamantly, why support a bill that would exempt them from mandatory spaying and neutering?
Just wondering.


That bill became such a mess toward the end. I've been catching up on all the amendments and analyses since you brought it to my attention. I bet some of the original supporters were shocked by the subsequent political changes.
Posted by: pam | July 17, 2007 at 09:43 AM
That is so sad. Puppy mills and pet stores do NOT produce quality pets. My father decided to not take his own advice and bought a puppy at a pet store. His dog is blind, deaf and has bad hips. No breeder worth their salt would ever sell a dog like that. It's disgusting.
Posted by: Simply Jenn | July 17, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Jan,
All I can say is wow!!
If this type of "alteration" can happen for a seemingly straight forward, though ridiculous (in my humble opinion) bill, can you imagine what exemptions or inclusions creep into the important bills that come before Congress. Many of these changes the general public knows nothing about. Then, as in this case, the media or activists only give us their side of the story. Who are they trying to fool. The burden is on us to do our own home work before forming an opinion.
Thanks for you insight on this issue. For me, passing a bill on mandatory spay/neuter, though well intended, encroached too closely on my freedoms as a US citizen for me to comfortable. It set a bad president.
Bravo to you for pointing our the inconsistencies of those supporting ("white washing") this bill.
"Sunshine"
Posted by: | July 17, 2007 at 04:33 PM
This is the first bill I've followed closely, even though I think I am an informed citizen, and it was quite an education. We do get media or activist versions of what the bill is about unless we do our own research. "Healthy pets" sounded so good when they started promoting it, until we discover that the bill promotes anything but healthy pets. Pam is right, it became such a mess of exemptions and changes, it was very hard to keep up with what was in it from one time to the next. And Jenn is right about the dangers of puppy mills to the health of pets, and to exempt them from mandatory s&n was absurd.
Jan
Posted by: jan | July 17, 2007 at 05:06 PM
It sounds to me like the Humane Society needs to figure out which side of the fence they're on.
Posted by: Sling | July 17, 2007 at 05:49 PM
Yeah, I'm just wondering too...
Posted by: AuthorMomWithDogs | July 18, 2007 at 02:03 AM
Good grief! Exemption for puppy mills? Does anything in La-La Land make sense?
Posted by: stacy | July 18, 2007 at 06:46 AM
what a mess...those pet shop puppies are always unhealthy...everyone should buy from the pound...dangit
Posted by: jackie | July 18, 2007 at 07:09 AM
This is so sad on so many levels. Of course, there is the issue of allowing puppy mills to flourish. Even acknowledging the bald/not blonde/crazy/unstable person as if she is an Example or Someone We Shoud Pay Attention To makes me sick. Yes she is a screw-up, but let's focus on Real People. Let's focus on the Real Problem. This story is so far removed from the true issues (of animal mistreatment) that it makes me want to cry.
Posted by: schnoodlepooh | July 18, 2007 at 09:25 AM
PS and the other issue is the overpopulation of dogs and cats.
there has to be a better way.
Posted by: schnoodlepooh | July 18, 2007 at 09:31 AM
Hum I'm confused...I thought Ms. Spears was a puppy mill.
Posted by: rosemary | July 18, 2007 at 12:03 PM
I have been catching up on your postings ... this last one is such a sad situation. With all the information available to pet owners, one wonders how puppy mills would still continue to be in business. And saying that, when pet stores charge so much more for the animals, I also can't understand why people would overpay for them there instead of going to a breeder. A friend who bought 3 from a pet store told me that she was getting "better dogs" because they were crossbred (she got 'designer dogs') therefore they would be healthier because they wouldn't be inbred. While they are adorable dogs, they have many medical problems and she still thinks I went to a breeder because I was a 'dog-snob'!
Posted by: Kahshe Cottager aka Jen | July 18, 2007 at 02:24 PM
Puppy mills are a problem to the industry, but a blanket bill doesn't help the situation either. How about finding these mills and making them more accountable for the health of pets.
Posted by: Matt | July 18, 2007 at 06:39 PM
This just makes no sense. Pet stores and those horrific puppy mills are about the most disturbing sight to behold...all those poor manufactured pups and on such a large scale...give me the lovable mutts from the pound any day!
Posted by: Tracey | July 18, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Honestly my guess is that the Humane Society did not fully read nor understand the bill before they started supporting it. Not a very smart move on their part, but something I'd expect from a big corporation.
Posted by: Faith | July 21, 2007 at 08:51 PM