After I wrote about the defeat of AB1634, the so-called California Healthy Pets Act, I received a flurry of e-mails agreeing that this legislation was the wrong answer to pet overpopulation. Sandra, a reader on the east coast, told me this. "AB1634 would do little ... to address the 'overpopulation' problem as it doesn't address the commercial aspect of breeding." She investigated and found that only 25 states require licensing for commercial breeders or kennels of various sizes. Of those, only17 call for inspections. Anyone who saw Oprah Winfrey's documentary filming the filthy existence of breeding dogs in puppy mills knows that more needs to be done to stop this abuse.
Judith lives in Gilroy. She told me she's not a breeder, but she couldn't understand how this legislation would solve any problems at all. "Look at the dogs at most shelters. Most are adults, not puppies. People looking for a new dog would prefer a puppy, not an adult. Older dogs will still go without homes." I'm not sure I completely agree with her assessment, but I do know that AB1634 wouldn't have stopped the influx of new pups into the market anyway. Read on.
Laura wrote about a similar mandatory spay/neuter bill introduced in Chicago. "The Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association and the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association are both strong opponents of this bill." As I mentioned in several discussions about AB1634, many of us in the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) were caught completely by surprise when our association initially supported this legislation without consulting its constituency.
Perhaps the most animated response came from Alan, who lives in Gilroy and breeds his dog once every two years. He told me he fears the state government's will is to control all of our lives and AB1634 was another attempt to do just that. He believes that only consumer-driven reform should be used to control the propogation of puppy mills. "A single private organization needs to emerge ... with membership entirely voluntary, to check up on breeders. Standards would be set for puppy health, time between breeding, and kennel cleanliness. If certified, the organization name and seal would be on the paperwork. Buyers who want these standards would then look for the certification."
It sounds like a start but many potential puppy owners would still buy from "inhumane" breeders. Why? Because the majority of consumers can't or won't take the necessary time to educate themselves about all facets of this issue. Still, Alan states that in his opinion, "Any attempt at reform must be at the consumer level and not by the Pig (law enforcement)." The Pig? Sounds a little too Orwellian to me, and while I agree with him that less government is usually better, I also believe that when present government cannot properly deal with an important issue, drastic measures should be taken. I don't think that consumer action, alone, can work.
Nowhere in all these e-mails did anyone propose an idea I believe might help curb this problem. Consider this: Californians purchase an enormous number of puppies from sources outside the state. Many of these are sold by "brokers," people who buy large numbers of puppies wholesale from puppy mills, then sell them for profit. Pet stores are the most obvious example of this group. Almost all of their pups are shipped to them from puppy mills. And all too often, puppies with serious, even severe health issues are sold to unsuspecting buyers. Pups come in from all over the world, crated for extremely long periods and exposed to all sorts of health problems. Many come from states Sandra mentioned where there are no laws addressing abuse in puppy mills. But some also come from overseas.
I saw a pup shipped from Georgia, the small nation next to Russia. This was a pup that clearly wasn't going to be a show dog; he lacked physical attributes of the breed. He was sold to be a pet. The broker who sold this pup lives in Mississippi, and was called when the pup died suddenly of respiratory complications. He had bled internally, causing collapse of one lung and fatal hemorrhage. I talked with the broker, and she took the offensive, telling me that it was the veterinarian's fault that this pup had died, even though autopsy evidence was to the contrary. I asked her if she was aware of the severe stress transcontinental travel was to a very young pup. Why did she subject these young dogs to this terrible incarceration? She replied that she was only trying "to improve the breed by bringing in new genetic lines from abroad." It was a well-rehearsed answer. But when I questioned why she would sell such an obviously poor-quality dog that was to be neutered, her response was, "We have nothing more to talk about." I heard the click of a disconnected telephone line. For her, it's all about money.
And the same can be said about pet stores. I talked with a store owner who lives locally about the wretched conditions his pups are shipped in. His response was a surprising acknowledgement. "But do you have any idea how many pups I sell? How much of my income comes from these?" Like I said, it's all about money.
No one knows whether or not AB1634 will surface again in California. We do know it wasn't the right answer to the growing problem of unwanted and unhealthy puppies and dogs in our state. We can only hope that some sort of plan can be developed to stop the unnecessary euthanasia of so many dogs. But somehow, we have to rid our country of the scourge of puppy mills. They are inhumane and cruel and a huge part of the overpopulation problem.
Pete Keesling Pete Keesling is a veterinarian at San Martin Veterinary Hospital. He writes a bi-weekly column for South Valley Newspapers and hosts a radio talk show, Dr. Pete’s Petpourri, Sundays at 1 p.m. and Friday mornings at 7:10 on KSCO 1080 AM. If you have questions about pet care, e-mail them to smvet3@yahoo.com.
Although the Hollister Free Lance does not have any obligation to monitor this board, the Hollister Free Lance reserves the right at all times to check this board and to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to the Hollister Free Lance in our sole discretion and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. The Hollister Free Lance also reserves the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions. All threats to systems or site infrastructure shall be assumed genuine in nature and will be reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Submission of any comments will be considered permission to use online or in print.
Highlights from the Prune Bowl now available