Vazquez 1

Jennifer Vazquez

Charlene Keeler

Writing 39C / AP Final draft

June 4, 2018

Lack of Regulation and Enforcement on Puppy Mills: Something Must Be Done

Introduction

The Horrible Hundred 2017 is a report, compiled by the Humane Society of the United

States (HSUS), of the USDA inspected puppy mills inspection reports. Just last year, 2017, in

The Horrible Hundred report there were “45 [new] dealers [and] 55 ‘repeat offenders’ who have

appeared in one or more of [the] prior puppy mill reports” (The Horrible Hundred 2017). The

issue with puppy mills is that the current laws in place as an effort to ‘oversee’ puppy mills

create complications in regulation. Consequently, many puppy mills have managed to stay

clandestine and don’t adhere to the current

laws. Unlicensed puppy mills have the

puppies undergoing inhumane treatment.

In Cabarrus County, North Carolina; 20

staffers from the HSUS, forensic camera

crew members, vets, “sheriff of Cabarrus

County and his deputies” rescued dogs

from an illegal puppy mill that Patricia

Yates was running; the inhumane
treatment that these dogs were found in
was shocking (Solotaroff). The dogs were
Figure 1. This image shows the conditions B.B., one of the dogs
from Patricia Yates' puppy mill, was living in.
http://www.independenttribune.com/news/puppy-mill-offender-
found-guilty/article_95a3a504-52d7-11e7-af9d-
4765f83c4c51.html
 Vazquez 2

found with their fur “so matted and excrement mottled” (Solotaroff). Puppy mills seek to gain as

much profit and many times at the expense of the dogs’ nutrition. Evidence of this approach,

from illegal puppy mills, to make profit is seen in the bust of Patricia Yates’ puppy mill; there

was “very dirty water bowls and inadequate levels of food” (Weeks). The ultimate goal is to get

rid of puppy mills, but it is very difficult to convince congressmen to support this movement and

create a federal law banning puppy mills all throughout the United States. A solution to this

hindrance is that individual states ban puppy mills in its’ entirety for their own state. An

educational program that comes to schools can bring awareness to K-12 children of adopting pets

from local adoption and rescue shelters. Through PSA and media clips we can advocate to the

public that when they are looking for pets many can be from inhumane puppy mills and the

puppy can have diseases, so it is in the owner’s interest not support any puppy mill. Media

campaigns can be helpful to gain support of voters in each state to help pass a legislation banning

puppy mills in their own states.

Regulation of Puppy Mills Over Time

The economy in the United States, specifically the agriculture economy at the end of

WWII was collapsing and consequently there wasn’t many jobs; thus, “the U.S. Department of

Agriculture [USDA] suggested that farmers attempt to support their families by breeding pure-

bred dogs” (Towsey 161). And so inexperienced farmer and soldiers started to breed dogs with

little to no veterinary care and food since they themselves were in dire circumstances where they

had no money. Here is where the breeders start to view these innocent dogs as “cash crops”

instead of considering them as pets (Towsey 159). When puppy mills initially started there were

no regulations to enforce and so puppy mills had puppies “unsocialized or exposed in existing

chicken coops or rabbit hutches” (Puppy Mills Then and Now).

 Vazquez 3

Over time new generations surged and the rise for specific breeds took place. Generations

such as the millennials and baby boomers were swayed what society displayed as the breed to

have. Around the 1990’s and 2000’s, famous actors and films showed certain breeds of dogs and

this would compel many viewers to want that type of dog breed, expecting to have a dog like the

one in the film. The film 101 Dalmatians was released in 1996 and there was a dramatic increase

in the breeding of Dalmatians. However, many of the people who bought the Dalmatians

expected the dogs to be like the ones in the film, docile, friendly, tame, and not have the

tendency to snap, bite, not like children, and shed a lot. This led to an increase of unwanted

Dalmatians; For example, “in South Florida [animal control officers] saw up to a 35% increase in

Dalmatians returns to animal shelters” (Navarro). A dramatic demonstration of the power of film

over the demand for specific breeds is shown in a “100-fold increases in Old English Sheepdog

registrations” in the span of 14 years of the film The Shaggy Dog premiering (Herzog). Media

and film show a perfectly scripted and planned out scene in which ‘trained dogs’ such as the one

in Marley and Me, Max, and 101 Dalmatians had and instructor telling them what to do and how

to behave; the public get a false notion of the real character of the dogs and so many people now

want that specific breed of dog.

With the lack of regulations and enforcement, puppy mills can get away with the

deplorable conditions that they keep the dogs in. The lack of stringent regulation is evident in

New Hampshire where “under [the] current law, breeders [can be] licensed with the New

Hampshire Department of Agriculture only if the breeder sells 50 individual puppies or 10 litters

in one year” so if there are breeders that fall just enough under the requirement for licensing they

get away without having to under go inspections and keeping the dogs in an unsanitary

environment (Hamrick).
 Vazquez 4

The rise of the internet has allowed many breeders to be able to advertise online and

reach a vast amount of people. The breeders can advertise the types of breeds they have and the

people purchasing a pet don’t even get to see where these dogs are coming from and see if the

puppies from these mills are in good health. Puppy mills that sell via the internet have the

advantage of “operate[ing] under the radar” and therefore escape regulations coming from the

state or federal level (Barnes). As more and more people become internet savvy and find it easy

to search and buy things online, this easy shopping experience is spreading among many

products and now to living, breathing animals, like dogs. Now instead of the going to the local

pet store to shop for a dog, the internet has allowed consumer/potential pet owners to choose the

dog that they want all from the comfort of their home and a click of a button. When purchasing

online, the breeder can ship puppies if they have “4 or less breeding females” and all of this is

under the USDA regulations (Lancaster Puppies). Hence the lack of regulations from the USDA,

it’s evident that this loophole allows breeders to ship without even looking at their past records

and only focusing on how many breeding females they have.

Previous attempts @ solving the issue and problems with them

In 1966 the Federal Government took a course of action against animal cruelty by passing

the Animal Welfare Act that would regulate the traffic and selling of animals in general. The

USDA was put in charge of enforcing the Animal Welfare Act, specifically the Animal and Plant

Health agency is the one whom directly works to “enforce” the AWA. The 1966 AWA set the

bare minimum standards for how the puppy mills could run which are still not an ideal or

humane way to keep these animals. The 1966 AWA described the minimum standards of care

for housing dogs to be:

 Vazquez 5

Humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers [and it]

include[d] minimum requirements with respect to the housing, feeding, watering,

sanitation, ventilation, shelter from extremes of weather and temperature, separation by

species, and adequate veterinary care. (The Animal Welfare Act - Public Law 89-544 Act

of August 24, 1966)

Even the USDA has published on their website that “the 1966 act set minimum standards

for the handling, sale, and transport of cats, dogs, nonhuman primates, rabbits, hamsters, and

guinea pigs held by animal dealers or pre-research in laboratories” (Adams). The AWA of 1966

was so vague when it came to the terms in which how breeder will be able to get their license as

well to the standards the facilities for breeding must meet.

It is evident that the 1966 AWA shows an interest to protect animals from cruel and

inhumane conditions but wasn’t very specific with the requirements for housing dogs. In 1970

the AWA was amended to redefine what the term “animal” encompassed to include “warm-

blooded” animals, but nothing was done to further specify the ‘minimum requirements’ of care

that the dog breeder must provide. The AWA was once again amended because of its vagueness

in 1976 to regulate the transportation, handling of animals. The 1976 amendment stated that “no

dogs … shall be delivered by any dealer [dog breeder] … to any intermediate handler or carrier

for such transportation … unless the animal is accompanied by a certificate issued by a

veterinarian licenses to practice veterinary medicine” that ensure that the animal is clear form

any “infectious diseases or physical abnormalities” (Public Law 94-279 Animal Welfare Act

Amendments of 1976). This 1976 amendment helped to control breeder who were overbreeding

dogs to the point that puppies were coming out with genetic defects that manifested into physical

ones and if the puppies lived in poor conditions in which they contracted an infectious disease
 Vazquez 6

they could not be sold. This forces the breeder to maintain their facilities clean. The AWA

intended to regulate puppy mills and not ban them and even in the regulation of the puppy mills

it has not been very successful there continues to be inhumane puppy mills as shown in the

USDA annual reports. Not until “February of 2001 the USDA adopted two other significant

publications as ‘guidance’ for the care of animals”, however it is unknown if the guidance’s

offered in this publication are the regulation as part of the AWA or just suggested ways of caring

for the animals (Favre).

Plan of Action: Laws/Policies:

Some states in the United

States have taken matters into

their own hands, some banning it

all together and other working on

a stricter regulation. For about

half a century there has been

attempts at regulating puppy

Figure 2 Courtesy of http://aldf.org/press-room/press-releases/best-
mills, such as the Animal worst-states-animal-protection-laws-2017-report-released/

Welfare Act, but they haven’t been sucessful in enforcing the regulations. Many loopholes in the

regulations have led many dogs to live and die unhumanely. It is difficult to pass a federal law

such as the one mentioned above, making puppy mills illegal, because many congress members

or politicians in general don’t want to appear as “anti-business” (Archer). According to the U.S

Animal Protection Laws 2017 ranking by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, 16 out of the 50 states

are middle to top ranking (as seen in the image to the right). In Feb. 2015 the ASPCA published

a state puppy mill chart that shows the state regulations within each state that help regulate
 Vazquez 7

puppy mills and only 19 out of the 50 states didn’t have any sort of regulations that aided the

dogs living in dog breeding facilities . “Across the country there are at least 16 states, …, that

contain one or more cities which have enacted similar prohibitions”; furthermore, taking these

numbers in to account 62% of the country already is taking the best interest of the dogs at hand

and working toward state-wide bans on puppy mills (Frelinghuysen, Rodney; pg.4). Now it has

been evident through many reports compiled by that of the USDA and the HSUS Horrible

Hundred reports that the regulations from the state and federal government isn’t working, but

what the Federal government can do is give out incentives, more funding, to states who work

toward banning puppy mills. In early 2018 California “became the first state to pass legislation

requiring all cats, dogs and rabbits sold at pet stores to be rescue animals”(Lenhyel). Following

California’s example, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York are next up to pass a state-wide

ban on puppy mills. As more and more states jump onto this bandwagon, this solution of state by

state banning of puppy mills can lead to a nation outlaw of dog breeding facilities. Violators of

the California ban on puppy mills will face a “a civil penalty of $500” for every animal that is in

that puppy mill (Frelinghuysen, Rodney; pg.2). Persecution of people who violate any of the

provisions of the AWA receive a fine of up to $1,000 or no more than a year in prison, or both

(The Animal Welfare Act - Public Law 89-544 Act of August 24, 1966). The licenses of those

puppy mills that have been found to be not complying the AWA minimum requirements are

suspended, but nothing else is done. Some of the same puppy mills continue to start other puppy

mills, HSUS and USDA counted to 55 repeat offenders for 2017 Horrible Hundred. I suggest

that the puppy mills who have previous violations not be allowed to renew their licenses to avoid

them starting another inhumane dog breeding facility. There are federal incentives that are given

to people via tax deduction if you foster a dog, your pet is a service animal or have a guard dog
 Vazquez 8

that is “protecting your business” (Martinez). By states passing their own state law it is much

cheaper than passing a federal law through congress. In California it costs about 500 billion

dollars to pass a law compared to a whopping 2 trillion to pass a federal law (Varshney, p.3)

(Crain, p.1).

The people involved in making the state laws are the individual state legislator,

committee, chambers, senators, representatives, governor and most importantly the state voters.

Each individual state law undergoes a similar process; it starts by an individual person or group

of people calling the attention of their state legislator and telling them that many people agree

that puppy mills should be illegal in their state. The state legislator and the office of bill drafting

will construct a proposal. The bill will then be presented to the state chamber and be assigned to

a committee along with a number. The committee will then take it into consideration and there

will be a public hearing, so public involvement is key. The committee will then decide if the bill

need amending, pass it to another committees, vote the bill down, or pass it and set a date on a

consent calendar. After the bill has been passed by the committee it heads over to another

reading where the entire chamber come together to discuss the bill. It then heads over to floor

vote and if passed it will be going to another chamber to undergo the same process. If the

chamber disagree then state rep. and senators come together to discuss the amending they could

do so both sides are content. If both chambers have agreed after the floor vote, then it is sent to

the governor who will review it and either sign it or veto. If vetoed the bill will require a 2/3 vote

on behalf of house and senate to overturn it and the bill becomes a law. On the other hand, if the

governor signed it then it becomes a law by de facto. The effect of having a state by state law of

banning puppy mills it will be much cheaper on the long run; the state taxpayers will also benefit

from state’s banning puppy mills because the 300 million dollars of taxpayer’s money that
 Vazquez 9

contributes to running an animal shelter a year can be allocated to better fund shelters, so they

could provide better care, hire more staff, and take more animals off the streets (Ogechi-Okoro).

Plan of Action: Education:

Whether it be an elaborate activity or an instructional video, children can be made aware

of the many possibilities they have of getting a loving pet from the local shelters rather than from

puppy mills. By creating an educational program like ones offered in part by the Puppy Mill

Project, The Humane Society of the United

States, and the ASPCA can send members

of their outreach programs to schools to

help children be aware of the option of

adoption and educating them on what a

puppy mill can entail. The Puppy Mill

Project education program have “presented

Figure 3 Courtesy of to over 2,400 children and adults and
http://www.thepuppymillproject.org/education-program/
counting” and use “age-appropriate

content and materials” for their K-12 students to keep them hooked (Education Program).

Programs like this tie into the K-12 education through books such as Can I Be Your Dog? by

Troy Cummings, Ladybug Girl and the Rescue Dogs by Jacky Davis and Found Dogs by Erica

Sirotich all help familiarize the younger students with the idea that there are also dogs in shelter

looking for love and a family. As the kids grow older they can be introduced to the definition of

puppy mills and form small discussion on what they think about puppy mills. Once they are in

middle and high school they can do community service projects to bring awareness to other

children or even adults. This educational approach is the best because it really involves the
 Vazquez 10

students and allows them to speak what is in their mind and at the same time develop speaking

and reading skills that they would

need to develop anyways but in a fun

and engaged way. Through these

educational programs we can teach

K-12 students and tell them to spread

the word about report unethical

puppy mills using tip lines such as the

one given by the HSUS: 877-MILL-

TIP (645-5847). Also educating the

Figure 4 This educational video is courtesy of the ASPCA Puppy mill
students that they can report unethical educators and campaign managers.

puppy mills to their local animal

control.

Plan of Action: PSA/ Social Media:

In an era where many of the people communicate via internet, phones and social media,

many issues have been brought to light and acted upon because facilitated communication that

modern technology has brought. The Last Chance for Animal organization has started the Puppy

Mill Awareness Day in Lancaster, Pennsylvania in 2004. Organizations such as this one get a

celebrity to endorse them and publicize the date on social media then more people across the

country could support and show their support via social media and or even coordinating adoption

events. Catchy public service announcements helps spread the word on not supporting puppy

mills and supporting adoption/recue shelter instead, The companion Animal Protection Society’s

PSA stating “Adopt, Don’t Shop” has been broadcasted on TV networks such as PBS, USA,
 Vazquez 11

HGTV. The demand for specific breeds are one of the factors why people turn to puppy mills

instead of looking at their local shelter. Social media and the internet can help bring awareness to

future pet owners that they can look at their feed and see what type of breeds they have at the

shelters right now or the future pet owner can leave their information at the shelter, so they can

be contacted if the specific breed of dog they wanted was brought recently into the shelter.

Through PSA announcements we can target people who are looking to adopt a specific breed and

show them services like Petfinder which compiles local adoption organization near them and

shows images of dogs and the type of breeds they have in that shelter. Another important thing is

to popularize and make a nationwide hotline to report unethical puppy mills and make this

number as popular as the suicide hotline. So, this can be achieved though a message or image

chain on social media that includes an image of an unethical puppy mill in the background while

the number of a reporting hotline in front and a message that says to spread the word. The use of

images in social media and sound will call towards the emotion of the viewer and guilt-trip them

into having to tag their friends in the images and reposting the images.

Conclusion

The current federal law, AWA, has been very difficult to enforce. To stop unethical

puppy mills, the long-term goal is to get rid of puppy mills. At a federal level it has proven hard

to do, but many of the states in the United States show an effort to move to that main goal. A

solution to this obstruction, that is the inability of the federal govt. passing at nation-wide ban on

puppy mills, is that individual states ban puppy mills in its’ entirety for their own state and while

there are states that aren’t at the stage of banning puppy mills completely then the state

legislations should revise the consequences for breaking the law and make it more rigorous

toward those who break the rules .Although the federal govt. can’t pass the law banning puppy
 Vazquez 12

mills, it can give out incentives so states move declare puppy mills illegal. Educational programs

that come to schools and bring awareness to children on what is an unethical puppy mill, how

could they report them, and teaching them about adopting from their local shelters can help all

help communicate the importance of adoption and not shopping at puppy mills. Public Service

Announcements, Social Media, and the internet all play a significant role in promoting an

unethical puppy mill hotline as well as services that help people adopt and shop for the certain

dog breed they are looking for. Social Media and PSA’s help spread the word of the treatment

dogs in puppy mills receive and there for gain support of voters in each state to help pass their

own legislation banning puppy mills in their own states.

 Vazquez 13

Works Cited

Adams, Benjamin, and Jean Larson. “Legislative History of the Animal Welfare Act:
Introduction.” United States Department of Agriculture,
www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislative-history-animal-welfare-act-introduction.

Archer, Beau. An Advocate’s Guide to Stopping Puppy Mills. 2016, p. 26.

Barnes, Kimberly. “Commercial Dog Breeders and Puppy Mills.” Animal Law Legal Center,
Michigan State University College of Law, 2017, www.animallaw.info/intro/commercial-
dog-breeders-and-puppy-mills.

Crain, W. Mark, and Nicole V. Crain. The cost of federal regulation to the US economy,
manufacturing and small business. National Association of Manufacturers, 2014.

“Education Program.” The Puppy Mill Project, www.thepuppymillproject.org/education-

program/.

Favre, David. “Full Title Name: Overview of U.S. Animal Welfare Act.” Animal Law Legal
Center, Michigan State University College of Law, 1 Jan. 1970,
www.animallaw.info/article/overview-us-animal-welfare-act.`

Frelinghuysen, and Rodney. “All Info - H.Res.502 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Providing for
the Concurrence by the House in the Senate Amendments to H.R. 601, with an
Amendment.” Congress.gov, California Legislative Information, 6 Sept. 2017,
www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/502/all-info.

Hamrick, Lindsay. “Breeding Ground for Animal Abuse.” Concord Monitor, 6 July 2017,
http://www.concordmonitor.com/MyTurn-Hamrick-Great-Danes_-11075652.

Herzog, Harold. “Forty-Two Thousand and One Dalmatians: Fads, Social Contagion, and Dog
Breed Popularity.” Society & Animals, vol. 14, no. 4, Oct. 2006, pp. 383–97. Crossref,
doi:10.1163/156853006778882448.

Lancaster Puppies. “Puppy Shipping Is Available!” Yorkiepoo Puppies for Sale | Lancaster
Puppies, Lancaster Puppies, www.lancasterpuppies.com/puppy-shipping-available.

Lenhyel, Kerry. “STATE NEWS: 3 States Proposing Bans on Puppy-Mill Pets.” Veterinarian's
Money Digest, 10 Mar. 2018, www.vmdtoday.com/news/state-news-3-states-proposing-
bans-on-puppymill-pets.
 Vazquez 14

Martinez, Elle. “Is This Deductible? Adopting a Pet.” The TurboTax Blog, Inuit Turbo Tax, 8
Sept. 2017, blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-deductions-and-credits-2/is-this-deductible-
adopting-a-pet-18124/.

Navarro, Mireya. “After Movies, Unwanted Dalmatians.” The New York Times, 14 Sept. 1997.
NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/14/us/after-movies-unwanted-
dalmatians.html.

Ogechi-Okoro, Andrea. “WHO LET THE DOGS OUT? CALIFORNIA BANS USE OF PUPPY
MILL » Dome | Blog Archive | Boston University.” RSS, 6 Mar. 2018,
sites.bu.edu/dome/2018/03/06/who-let-the-dogs-out-california-bans-use-of-puppy-mill/.

“Public Law 94-279 Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976.” United States Department of
Agriculture, www.nal.usda.gov/awic/public-law-94-279-animal-welfare-act-amendments-
1976.

The Humane Society of The United States. “Puppy Mills Then and Now: A decade of Progress.”
The Humane Society of the United States, The Humane Society of the United States, May
2017,www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/pets/puppy_mills/report-puppy-mills-then-
now.pdf.

Solotaroff, Paul. “The Dog Factory: Inside the Sickening World of Puppy Mills.” Rolling Stone,
Rolling Stone, 3 Jan. 2017, www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/the-dog-factory-inside-
the-sickening-world-of-puppy-mills-w457673.

“The Animal Welfare Act - Public Law 89-544 Act of August 24, 1966.” United States
Department of Agriculture, www.nal.usda.gov/awic/animal-welfare-act-public-law-89-
544-act-august-24-1966.

The Humane Society of The United States. “The Horrible Hundred 2017: Uncovering U.S.
Puppy Mills.” The Humane Society of the United States, The Humane Society of the
United States, May 2017, www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2017/05/horrible-
hundred-2017-uncovering-puppy-mills.html.

Towsey, Melissa. Something Stinks: The Need for Environmental Regulation of Puppy Mills.
Villanova Environmental Law Journal, 2010,
digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/elj/vol21/iss1/6/.

Varshney, Sanjay B., and Dennis H. Tootelian. "Cost of state regulations on California small
business study." El Dorado Hills: Varshney and Associates (2009).

Weeks, Erin. “Puppy Mill Bust Rescues 130 Animals.” The Independent Tribune, The
Independent Tribune, 28 Sept. 2016, www.independenttribune.com/news/puppy-mill-bust-
rescues-animals/article_3b7f6a1a-84ef-11e6-9ed8-934f24e37a85.html.
 Vazquez 15

Writer’s Memo

My process writing this advocacy paper involved a lot of researching and examine how actual
laws were made. Having to do a lot of researching on how previous organization have attempted
to educate students on puppy mills helped me see what is working and what isn’t. When I began
to tackle this assignment, I began with two outlines, so I could organize what I was going to
speak about my solutions, history, intro, and conclusion. The other outline was more specific and
helped me organize my ideas for each section. During this assignment I had to do a lot of
research on legal documents and be able to understand what is being said under all of the legal
jargon used. My strengths are the conveyance of the education and social media solutions,
because I was able to better convey my thoughts and justify them as feasible solutions. My
weaknesses during this paper were the laws and policies solution section, because I though it
could have used a bit more of researching to explain more about changing the penalties to a
higher citation or longer stay in jail. The predicted letter grade for this assignment in my opinion
is a B or B+.