Puppy Mills, Ethics, and Governmental Regulation

Overview: The Origins of and Rationale for Puppy Mills

Dog breeding is a big business in the United States. Raising purebred dogs, or at least dogs that can be sold as purebred can be very lucrative. Unfortunately, in many breeding facilities, that profit motive is primary and the welfare and well-being of the animals strictly secondary. The term “puppy mill” is a colloquial term to refer to such facilities. Most puppy mills do, in fact, operate within the letter of the law, because whatever law does exist (which varies from state to state) almost always only mandates that the animals are maintained in a reasonably healthy physical condition. Most puppy mills, however, ignore the psychological health of the breeder dogs and the puppies they produce, and in many cases, the breeder dogs spend their entire lives in small cages. By doing so, puppy mills both create unhealthy animals and foster animal cruelty.

The origins of puppy mills and large-scale dog breeding are thought to have originated after WWII in the American Midwest and in the Amish regions of the country. Fumarola (1998) noted that dog breeding operations flourished in traditionally rural areas where animals were viewed simply as producers of goods or products themselves; concern for animal welfare was in its infancy and most traditional farmers were very dispassionate about any suffering the animals they owned may have endured (Fumarola 257). Also, there was a tremendous increase in the demand for pets as compared to the war years; the Baby Boom meant that people were forming families, and the growth of American suburbia and greater homeownership meant that more people than ever could afford pet dogs and had the space to keep them. Owning a pet had become an essential part of the American dream: two kids, a car, and a house with a white picket fence and a dog frolicking in the yard.

This dream produced demand that needed to be satisfied. And when there is a strong demand for a product, there will always be those who are willing to cut corners in delivering it. To be fair to “puppy mill” owners, for several decades after the end of WWII, there was really no concept of animal rights as we understand them today. It wasn’t until a growing social sensibility began to permeate the American consciousness that the country started to change its attitudes toward animals and animal rights. As noted in Steven Wise’s Rattling the Cage,

…attitudes toward animals have changed. Very few scientists today believe that nonhuman animals are simply mindless machines, collections of stimuli and responses. It would be convenient to believe that this was true […] Then we could do unpleasant things to them without any feelings of guilt. (Wise 3)

Of course, this change didn’t happen all at once. As noted above, rural areas wherein animals had always been viewed as producers of goods were the first to generate puppy mills. That is no doubt due in part to the sometimes necessarily dispassionate nature of the farming profession: it’s hard to take a chicken or pig out behind the barn and kill it if you have any concern for its well-being or think that it has any rights.

In terms of the rights of dogs as pets, the booming demand for purebred puppies was actually a step backward for animal rights. Pet store chains were strictly a postwar phenomenon, created to meet the rising demand for pets in American suburbia. Prior to that time, a family would most likely acquire a new puppy because someone down the street had a dog that had recently given birth to a litter. Thus, you generally knew the dog that was the mother of your new puppy. (The father could be, well, any dog within a ten-mile radius.) Your puppy wouldn’t be taken from its mother too early, nor would it or its mother have been deprived of the opportunity to become socialized. With the coming of big-box pet stores, all this changed. Now, many people buy “that doggie in the window” at the local supermall. The problem with this is that “Nearly nine out of ten puppies sold in pet stores come from puppy mills…dogs in puppy mills are typically kept in inhumane conditions, tethered to trees or confined to feces-filled wire cages” (Moore 22). Aside from the very large consideration of animal cruelty, you get a different kind of dog from a puppy mill than you would from that basket of puppies at your neighbors’. Rather than being oohed and aahed at and fondled by the neighborhood kids and fussed over by their mothers’ owners, mass-produced puppies know no environments other than the insides of tiny cages and have typically never interacted with humans except for brief periods of time. Thus, puppy mill dogs are more fearful, more easily traumatized, and less socialized than more “traditionally” raised dogs.

If one considers the inferior quality of a puppy-mill dog as a pet, the question that naturally arises is why people care so much about having a “purebred” dog. After all, there isn’t exactly a shortage of puppies in the world. Animal shelters are often overflowing with adoptable dogs, plus, that neighbor down the street with his basket of puppies is still there. The answer is that there is a certain cachet to pet ownership of a “purebred” dog. People also think that a “pure” dog is somehow superior to the classic “mutt.” Yet, anyone who has owned a mutt of uncertain ancestry knows that a mutt can be a great pet just as much as any other dog. This suggests, unfortunately, that many of those who buy puppy mill dogs, either directly from the breeder or through a big-box pet store, are doing so not for the traditional purposes of acquiring an affectionate companion, but rather, for acquiring status. This status comes at a cost. As Melissa Towsey notes, “Humane societies caution, however, that if you adopt a dog from a pet store that deals with commercial breeders, you must come to terms with the knowledge that saving this puppy creates a spot for another and continues to fuel the puppy mill machine” (Towsey 160). Thus, even the most well-intentioned purchaser of a pet store dog is perpetuating the cycle of ill-treatment and misery that characterizes the puppy mill industry. The demand for these dogs is fueled by the incorrect perception that their “purebred” quality makes them better pets, but what makes a dog a good pet is its experiences with humans and having been well-treated, so puppy mill dogs arguably make worse pets than others.

Consequences of Puppy Mills

The proliferation of puppy mills has had a profound effect. First of all, the overall genetic health of many dog breeds has suffered. Since puppy mills are primarily for-profit, they sell as many dogs as they can, even those with persistent medical conditions that will be passed on from generation to generation. The unsanitary conditions and lack of opportunities for exercise in most puppy mills mean that the mothers are often in poor physical condition. As Lockwood (1995) notes, “The result has been the proliferation of physically and behaviorally unsound animals from among the most popular breeds, including those not traditionally associated with aggression to people” (Lockwood 134). The irony is that since mankind’s caveman days, dogs have been selectively bred to increase their suitability as human companions and helpers. Now, in puppy mills, selective breeding is producing animals that make lousy pets. Lockwood (1995) goes on to note that puppy mill dogs of breeds that are known for their docility are actually quite frequently aggressive and poorly socialized.

An additional effect of the breeding programs that take place in puppy mills is the preservation rather than the eradication of persistent problems in certain dog breeds. Responsible breeders try—and often succeed—to eradicate, by selective breeding, problems that crop up in certain breeds, such as hip dysplasia in Golden Retrievers. In fact, this has been the goal of dog breeders since prehistoric times: to improve the breed. Puppy mill operators, on the other hand, just want to produce and sell as many dogs as possible. Thus, producing genetically sound dogs isn’t a consideration. McMillan, Duffy, and Serpell surveyed numerous empirical studies and found that

By demonstrating that dogs maintained in these environments develop extreme and persistent fears and phobias, possible learning deficits as evidenced by lower trainability, and often show difficulty in coping successfully with normal existence, this study provides the first quantitative evidence that the conditions prevailing in CBEs are injurious to the mental health and welfare of dogs. (McMillan, Duffy, & Serpell 86)

The term “CBE” refers to the “Commercial Breeding Establishment.” The authors’ conclusion suggests that not only do the breeding mothers suffer from these impairments but that these behavioral problems are passed on to their puppies as well. Frequently, once the mothers’ utility as breeders has been used up (as soon as four years), the dogs are destroyed rather than adopted out, because, after nothing but years isolated in cages, they make very poor pets.

Ethical Considerations

Numerous animal rights advocacy groups decry the existence of puppy mills. The growing number of voices in support of animal rights reflects a new sensibility: that animals are more than just food, tools, or producers of products. They have rights and we, therefore, have responsibilities to them. This is a new way of thinking for our society. Twenty or more years ago, someone stating that there was such a thing as animal rights would probably have been met with a blank stare and maybe laughter. People often consider their pets to be members of the family but don’t necessarily extend that sensibility to animals in general. Nonetheless, there is a groundswell of feeling in support of humane treatment of animals, particularly those used for commercial purposes. This feeling, though, has generally failed to include pets in the public’s eye, because people consider that an animal that becomes a pet is ipso facto fortunate. This is no doubt true for rescue shelter animals and so forth, but puppy mill dogs suffer such abuse during their early lives that it is hard to consider them fortunate, and of course, the breeding mothers lead short, cruel lives of unalloyed misery.

If more people knew about the conditions in puppy mills, the outcry would be much greater than it is. Most of us are emotionally affected by the maltreatment of animals and consider such behavior to be unethical. In fact, this concept is embodied in the very name of PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA notes that “Since puppy mills breed dogs for quantity, not quality, genetic defects are rampant. These can include physical problems that require costly veterinary treatment as well as personality disorders that often frustrate guardians into abandoning their dogs” (PETA, “Puppy Mills”). The ethical treatment of animals necessarily includes not deliberately causing them to suffer; it also includes not breeding them so as to worsen the breed or create lesser-functioning individuals. Yet, that is exactly what puppy mills do.

There is a larger issue in play here as well. It is becoming less and less acceptable to commodify animals. To regard animals only as tools, servants, and food for mankind is to ignore their feelings, happiness, and even reason for existence other than to serve us. This perception has been reinforced by the Christian Bible’s book of Genesis, where God tells Adam and Eve that all the animals He placed on Earth are there to serve them. If something exists only to serve you, then it’s easy to mistreat or misuse that something. Certainly, even if we do have any rightful dominion over animals, we’ve completely abused it, with our mass extinctions of species, destruction of animal habitat, and corruption of the natural environment.

Proper treatment of animals straddles the border between philosophy and science. We should treat animals ethically for two basic reasons: because it is morally wrong not to do so and because we degrade the quality of animal species when we treat animals unethically. That one reason is quite different from the other but that they lead to a common conclusion was not lost on David Fraser. He wrote that “Animal welfare science has grown more compatible with the approaches used by some ethicists. The increasing convergence of the scientific and philosophical approaches may lead to a more integrated field of study” (Fraser 171). In other words, treating animals properly for moral reasons and doing so for practical considerations are compatible approaches. It is unlikely that any time in the near future, we will stop using or eating animals (though that is the ethical imperative of many activists). We can, however, adopt a new moral framework for doing so. We have, after all, at least in modern Western society, embraced the idea that all humans are entitled to basic rights and equal treatment. That it has taken so long to get to that point and that in many parts of the world, human rights are not respected indicates that raising a similar consciousness about animal rights may be a protracted and difficult process. Still, the outrage about puppy mills is growing, and not just in terms of angry individuals. Governments are beginning to legislate ethical and humane treatment of animals as well, and in jurisdictions where this has taken place, puppy mills may very well be deemed illegal.

Legislation

One of the first pieces of U.S. legislation to deal with the ethical and humane treatment of animals was the Animal Welfare Act of 1966. The purpose of the Act was to provide regulation of the conditions under which animals were used in research and experimentation. The Act was not intended to regulate commercial enterprises such as CBEs and puppy mills. However, its provisions (and those of its subsequent amendments) have been found to be applicable in regard to the treatment of animals in such commercial entities. As H.W. Schultz notes,

“Initially the major emphasis of this legislation was to protect owners of cats and dogs from the theft of their animals, many of which were found to be sold for experimental purposes. The 1970 amendments broadened the coverage…these amendments… gave added emphasis to the recognition of the sale, purchase, transportation, housing, care, handling and treatment of animals used for research purposes, or as pets or for exhibitions, as a significantly large interstate commercial operation. There was a need to insure humane care and treatment of these animals.” (Schultz 3)

Thus, as often happens, legislation intended to address a specific issue has been found to apply to an expanded area of concern. Many who have fought against animal cruelty point out that despite its widespread occurrence, inhumane treatment of animals is, in fact, illegal. This is true at not only the federal but also the state and local levels.

There is a major problem, however, with many existing animal cruelty laws, in that they very often provide “exemptions” for one or more particular species of animal or given class of usage. For instance, many animal cruelty laws, particularly those in largely rural states, do not apply to farm animals. Particularly alarming in the case of puppy mills, they sometimes do not apply to “commercial breeders” (CBEs). There exists no overarching legislation other than the Animal Welfare Act, which though it is continually widened in scope, does not go far enough in ensuring the ethical treatment of animals. The federal government has been generally lax in enforcing humane treatment of animals, preferring instead to let it be legislated and enforced at the local level. This could quite possibly be because to strictly enforce animal cruelty laws would be to put many animal-related industries, such as meat processing, out of business. Frasch, Otto, Olsen, and Ernest note that “Most anti-cruelty laws include one or more exemptions. Exemptions can significantly weaken an otherwise strong animal protection law by excluding whole classes of animals, such as wildlife or farm animals, from its application” (Frasch et al. 69). Despite the gradual shifting of popular opinion toward the ethical treatment of animals, not everyone subscribes to that new train of thought. Moreover, the livelihoods of many individuals, as well as the existence of many businesses, depend on the mistreatment of animals. While one could certainly argue that these considerations are outweighed by the moral and ethical considerations of humane animal treatment, the fact remains that those who make their living from the mistreatment of animals are unlikely to see it that way. And those people vote.

An Evolving Sensibility

Fortunately, it isn’t an either-or choice between continuing inhumane practices and throttling entire industries and throwing people out of work. Puppy mills aren’t necessary. Purebred dogs can be produced in humane conditions. Dogs don’t need to be confined to cages, but rather, can be given access to play areas, given the opportunity to socialize, and in general, be well cared for. Puppy mills exist because they are mechanisms of mass production. But dogs are individuals. You can’t mass-produce them without getting an inferior product.

This suggests a way that ethical and practical considerations can converge. Puppy mills are businesses; so are big-box pet stores. They want to sell dogs, and people want to buy them. This is fine; there is no reason, ethical or moral, why these businesses shouldn’t make money from raising and selling dogs and other animals. The key may be that every business wants to sell a product that is perceived as superior to its competitors. If the public became aware a) that most puppy-mill dogs make inferior pets and b) that the big-box pets stores sell 90% or more puppy-mill dogs, then business would drop off; not necessarily because people felt morally outraged (though one would hope that would happen) but because they felt they were getting an inferior product. If this perception arose and persisted, then customers would demand that the pets they bought were only from humane and ethical breeders. Many such breeders exist today. If there were a public revulsion against puppy mills, then those humane breeders would realize a huge competitive advantage, and the puppy mills would be driven out of business. One can imagine that if PetCo, PetSmart, and Pets.com changed their policies so that they eschewed the purchase and sale of puppy mill dogs, they would likewise have a major advantage over their competitors. Thus, ethical and good-business concerns can converge. If a big-box store isn’t convinced by the ethical arguments, then it might be convinced by the prospect of increased profits.

The recent increased awareness of animal rights and their ethical treatment is very encouraging. Celebrites as diverse as Charlize Theron, Betty White, Howard Stern and Sarah McLachlan are committed animal rights activists and have given animal rights organizations active financial support. The Humane Society continues to be a strong and tireless activist for the ethical treatment of animals. At the grassroots level, the ordinary citizen is becoming more and more aware of how animals are often mistreated in the service of our consumer society and is increasingly unwilling to buy consumer goods that are the products of animal exploitation. Puppy mills have survived largely by operating under the radar; pet stores (large and small) that sell puppy mill dogs are often vague or even disingenuous in telling purchasers where the dogs come from.

If there were some kind of mass exposé of the cruel and inhumane conditions found in most puppy mills, perhaps in a documentary film, there would no doubt be a groundswell of outrage. We like to think that we are a sensitive and caring society. If more people knew just where that cute puppy at PetSmart had come from and what conditions his mother endured, they might be picketing the store instead of buying a puppy from it.

Works Cited

Frasch, Pamela D., et al. "State animal anti-cruelty statutes: An overview." Animal L. 5 (1999): 69.

Fraser, David. "Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures." Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65.3 (1999): 171-189.

Fumarola, Adam J. "With Best Friends Like Us Who Needs Enemies--The Phenomenon of the Puppy Mill, the Failure of Legal Regimes to Manage It, and the Positive Prospects of Animal Rights." Buff. Envtl. LJ 6 (1998): 253.

Lockwood, R. A. N. D. A. L. L. "The ethology and epidemiology of canine aggression." The domestic dog: Its evolution, behaviour, and interactions with people (1995): 131-138.

McMillan, Franklin D., Deborah L. Duffy, and James A. Serpell. "Mental health of dogs formerly used as ‘breeding stock’ in commercial breeding establishments." Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135.1 (2011): 86-94.

Moore, D. "Born to Die." Dating: Marketing Gimmick or Inventory Management Genius,” Logistics Spectrum (1999): 22-24.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Peta.org. 29 Nov 2013.

Schultz, H. W. "Animal Welfare Act." (1981).

Towsey, Melissa. "Something stinks: The need for environmental regulation of puppy mills." Vill. Envtl. LJ 21 (2010): 159-407.

Wise, Steven M. Rattling the cage: Toward legal rights for animals. Basic Books, 2000.