Quebec 'Puppy Mill Capital of North America'?

[Melody]

I think the label is a bit strong, although there definitly appears to be a problem. I don't understand how it could be a location thing though so I suspect there's more there than meets the eye. I do have to wonder about what they call a puppy mill when it appears that any mass breeder is automatically labelled as such. I always pictured puppy mills as places where horrific abuse was evident upon sight. Perhaps ignorance is bliss in my case though, as I don't have much more to go on than the occasional news story.

Animal welfare workers call on Quebec to do more to stop puppy mills (http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n100982A)

[CACAdmin]

It's always heartbreaking to hear of animals who have suffered abuse. And it is a shame when/if legitimate breeders are lumped in and mis-labelled 'puppy mills'. It would be interesting to know more about the current regulations and how they are enforced. Do they have sufficient penalties for those who abuse animals? (or is it a simple 'slap-on-the-wrist' and minimal fine which the unethical will view as the 'price of doing business'.)

[fishykisses]

More NEEDS to be done about puppy mills.
I have a puppy mill dog from Califonia and he has so many issues. He came with an ulcerated eye that he nearly lost from it being poked with the chicken wire sticking out of the cage he was living in. He has Zero trust for anyone but me because of the horrific treatment and conditions he lived in for the first 3 years of his life. There are many other issues that I'm working on now with trainers and lots of patience but the love and loyalty that i get out of this little 5 pound dog is so worth it!
My heart breaks for the other puppy mill dogs that don't make it out.
The article is right - it's the Provincial laws that need to change. That's what keeps the puppy mills in business in the USA. Animals are property rather than living beings with rights.
this is Lukas after 4 months of living with me
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b245/fishykisses/DSCF3835.jpg

[Pamelajo]

I kind of have the feeling that puppy mills make enough money that a fine is no big deal. I am not sure if there is any jail time here in Canada.

[Melody]

That is one cute doggy.... will he grow into those ears? :laugh:

What struck a note with me is the statements about the breeders who are breeding a lot of dogs. The logic is you can't make money from dogs unless you abuse them, according to private breeders who have their own interests to look after here.

It's hard for me to accept that every breeder of more than a few types of dogs is abusing them. I don't make money from breeding a zillion fish either - I'm always in the red. Could someone just be into breeding dogs and not care how much they make from it? If those animals look healthy and the conditions they live in are humane, should we be shutting that 'dog hobbyist' down based on number alone?

I know there is a real problem with slimey individuals who do breed dogs for a profit in horrible conditions, just like there are huge fish farms who do it to fish. I'm just wondering how much of this is hyped from the little show breeder who would benefit from putting the larger breeder out of business and an organization that wants more authority/power?

[Pamelajo]

I really don't think they are should be lumped together. People breeding lots of dogs in good conditions and with the welfare of the dogs at the top of their priority list is a totally different matter.

[fishykisses]

He actually won't grow into the ears - he's done growing and i agree...he is cute!

I would hope that the article has come from researching the criminal cases of abuse and deplorable conditions. I believe here anyway it takes a lot to get a place busted - 3 warnings over several months and if conditions haven't improved, then seizure of animals and charges laid.

[Pamelajo]

He definitely is a cutie. Glad to has a nice home with you and you are willing to put in the effort to take care of him and give him a good life.

[CACAdmin]

He definitely is one cute little dog. It's nice to know that someone like yourself rescued him and now he has a loving home.

[Melody]

It seems in this case it's a bit of a whizzing contest between two groups who want to run things. I find that disturbing since they should both be focused on the same thing and work together.

I have to agree that activists saying there's 2000 puppy mills is suspect as well. As the article says, how do they know? If they know where these so-called mills are, then why haven't they reported them? There's no record of even close to that many by any definition. I hate it when activists do that because it means all legitimate complaints are dismissed as melodrama.

According to the SPCA, they'll be going after every breeder who has more than a few dogs on the premises, regardless of the state they're kept in because they ASSUME they can't be well cared for due to the ASSUMPTION that the breeder is after big profits. They could still feasibly live off the income and care for the dogs. There's more money in healthy animals after all and not everyone has to live like a rich person. If I loved dogs and it was my dream to work at home with them, I would only need to make enough for the basics and happily live my dream.

"In my opinion anyone who is breeding a large number of dogs of all different breeds and profiting from it as their main source of income is not properly treating the animals," says Devine, acting director the SPCA.

"Being a dog owner and having spoken to breeders, it is actually impossible to turn a profit from breeding dogs because if you're doing it properly the cost of caring from them and caring for the puppies is so astronomical."
(mhtml:{A707068F-4646-4173-8313-F1203D163DA2}mid://00010868/!x-usc:mailto:kg70@rogers.com)
I hope they don't bring their assumptions to the fishkeeping hobby or we can say goodbye to fishrooms. I don't like to see rulings based on mass assumptions of intent, when there's nothing more to back the theory than the small breeders who have a vested interest in seeing larger breeders driven out of the business.

Otherwise, I'm happy to see a crack-down on the slimeballs if that indeed is the point.

[OldMan]

Around here they call a breeder a puppy mill as a derogatory statement about the quality of the puppies that come out of it. It is not about the conditions under which the animals are kept. The main focus of complaints about "puppy mills" is that they do nothing to maintain quality but will breed any dog that comes along. If german shepards are popular, they get all the shepards bred that they think will sell. The only requirement is that they are really shepards. The contrast usually given is to compare "puppy mills" to show breeders who of course are trying to get top dollar for their dogs and cull their breeding stock heavily. Neither of these breeders are necessarily looking out for the humane care of the dogs nor is either one more likely to abuse an animal. It seems that you have a completely different definition of a puppy mill.

[Melody]

That's exactly what the beef is - you can have your opinion and I can have mine, but show quality is not regulated and it has nothing to do with cruelty, so why is the SPCA spouting such nonsense? The original puppy mill definition is someone who mass breeds dogs using inhumane methods. The raids they did where they found dead dogs and sores, etc., excellent. That's what they're there for. Shut the slimeballs down.

Any other form of breeding that doesn't compromise a dog's health and well being shouldn't be a concern to a humane society. There's no reason to lump breeders into a 'problem' group based on their opinion. They're supposed to prevent cruelty to animals, period.

It's like them raiding a breeder with a fishroom just because he has more than 20 tanks of average Guppies, based only on their opinion that he can't be making enough money to live on from them unless he's not caring for them properly... it's ludicrous. He could be going out with his fishing rod and catching those fish dinner everyday and producing fish in premium health, while not having to purchase food. It seems straight forward to me - look at his Guppies and if they're healthy, get out of his fishroom because the SPCA has no business being there.

I can make the same type of generalized statement they're making - there is no way you can have a show quality dog without abusive breeding practices. They put looks far ahead of health and their dogs are garbage. Now imagine the uproar? I can't make a mass judgement like that and neither can they.

It's not the show snobs with hidden agendas that bother me though, it's a humane society parroting their views - that's disturbing.

That's the question in the report - are there 2000 breeders abusing their dogs or are the 2000 breeders that someone has labelled a puppy mill because they don't breed for premium fluffyness? People with hidden agendas crying wolf are not going to help the animals that are truly suffering and in fact, it makes people dismiss the legitimate advocates who lobby because of genuine concerns about genuine cruelty. The SPCA should be denouncing that, not agreeing with such a ridiculous notion.... the way I see it anyway.

[Lisachromis]

I have sneaky suspicions that PETA is getting involved without "getting involved" if you know what I mean.

My opinion is if you can afford and handle the care and breeding of your chosen animal/s, then it's fine. If you cannot, then you shouldn't have them. I've seen many case of animal abuse on tv shows, and often they are just about 1 animal in the house.
:no: :no: