advertisement

LETTER: 'Puppy mill' term offensive to responsible breeders

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 | 11:30 a.m. CDT

The professional, licensed breeders in the state of Missouri are highly offended by the use of the term "puppy mill" by Attorney General Chris Koster in the recent fly-around the state concerning the dog industry.

There is no legal definition for the term "puppy mill."

The term "puppy mill" was coined by animal rights activists and supporters against anyone who breeds dogs, regardless of the care the animals receive. The name-calling is a means of turning the unknowing public against all dog breeders and to raise endless funds for continuous propaganda and money-making schemes by animal-rights activists and organizations.

There are professional kennels and substandard kennels.

Professional breeders operate legal kennels, licensed by the U.S. and state departments of agriculture, and meet or exceed all guidelines pertaining to the health, care and well-being of their animals. They are active members, in good standing, of state associations.  They attend seminars and earn continuing-education hours for lectures on such topics as prenatal and postnatal care, nutrition, health care, socialization, grooming, kennel management, tax preparation, ventilation, incubation and reproduction.

Substandard kennels are illegal, unlicensed facilities that produce animals with no regard for their health and well-being.

No one supports neglect or abuse of animals, but please be advised that animal rights activists call ALL dog breeders "puppy mills" to garner support for fundraising efforts to put ALL breeders out of business.

The term “puppy mill” is a derogatory word used by animal rights activists and supporters against anyone who breeds dogs, and it is no more acceptable than using slur names for those of different ethnic backgrounds.

Mr. Koster, we ask that you refrain from using the term “puppy mill” and that you correct others that use the term to describe dog breeders. Animal rights activists use the term to garner support for fundraising, and those funds are being used to eliminate all breeding, use and enjoyment of animals. Please help us stop the spread of animal rights issues. Let’s all begin by eliminating the term “puppy mill” from our vocabulary.

Karen Strange is the president of MoFed, an organization dedicated to protecting the rights of animal owners who take proper care of their animals. She lives in Lake of the Ozarks. 

 


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Ginger July 2, 2009 | 2:42 p.m.

It is about time the truth was published.
I am a USDA Licensed Breeder. I take care of all my dogs and I love them. I love the breeds I breed. I breed only to better the breeds I raise.
The term Puppy Mill is so grossly abused. It is also being used to ethically profile the Mennonites and Amish communities.
The public needs to be aware of the evilness of this term Puppy Mill.

This term causes hate, and disgust. It forms witch hunts, and lynch mobs. Some breeders fear they are in danger from people who react to the over inflated idea of the term puppy mill. I myself are in fear of these radicals . Especially after our own government has tagged groups of Animal Rights activist as the leading domestic terrorist in this country.

They use money you send them over sad pictures of puppies to try and take away farmers rights and your right to eat meat. They have false reports of how meat is bad for you. When real scientific studies show vegan diets are detrimental to human health, fertility, and hinder the grown of human children and can cause brain damage and cause the children to cease to thrive. Even with vitamin B supplements. These people will deteriorate in health. It also changes human temperment the lack of meat protein . It causes hormonal imbalances which can make men weaker and woman more aggressive.

Vegetarians will eat some meat protein in eggs, milk, fish or poultry. Vegans will not even use anything with egg or milk byproducts.

It is very frightening the goals of these Animal rights activist. It almost appears their goal is the end of the human race.

Yet they use our sensitivities to milk money from us so they have the power to sway the public.

(Report Comment)
Ginger July 2, 2009 | 2:44 p.m.

Right now it is Posh to own a rescue dog. Especially if it is a puppy mill rescue. I have proof that rescues are buying puppies from USDA licensed breeders and other breeders posing as pet stores and brokers. and at times a regular citizen wanting a puppy. They then resell them as rescued from a puppy mill.

If you put an add for a free dog you will most likely be contacted by a rescue.

They do not have to pay taxes on the money they raise. It is very easy for them to keep this money too. Non profit CEO's are allowed 10% of all incoming donations which includes what the wealthier people pay for these so called rescues. There was a day a rescue meant a street dog which we all know is nearing extinction.

CEO's of non profits are also allowed to pay themselves a salary. They are also allowed to pay for expenses. such as if a rescue dog or cat is kept in the house the house is an expense. The profits from non tax paying, non profits are huge. I learned all this directly from a non profit of how profitable a non profit really is. They are also allowed first dibs on expensive items from gov surplus.

I also know of a rescue Maltese sold as a rescue or lets say. The donation was $10,000.00 .

In these economic times these non profits are milking this country out of saleries and jobs. With every rescue sold to the public a tax paying licensed breeder or pet store looses a taxable sale and jobs are also lost. Rescue dogs also do not have to come with any guarantees. Even Oprahs rescue from a very expensive rescue died of parvo.

The idea is projected that legal licensed breeders are the ones responsible for contributing sick puppies to the public. When in fact this is not true.

A licensed breeder has to stand behind their puppies a rescue does not.

The only source I consider a real rescue are the local city shelters. Other then that you are dealing with a for profit non profit. The public has got to see the truth before they make a grave mistake. and kill valuable jobs.

(Report Comment)
Ginger July 2, 2009 | 2:45 p.m.

Also to the Veterinarians of Missouri and other states. I know you are taught in school about puppy mills. Who do you think pays the grants in most veterinarian colleges.

A professor at university of Missouri Colombia told me point blank who pays their research and that would be the HSUS the leading myth makers of these times. And the richest from public money colleted through false hood .

Veterinarians believe the puppy mill myth because they were taught this directly from the animal rights activist who paid their professors. A very wise move by such sneaky mean people.

But! If USDA breeders are forced into extinction and the public is limited to where a puppy can be bought. Which believe me a BMW will be cheaper then a puppy by this time. There will be no need for small Animal vets. You simply will have no clients.So all that money spent in school will be wasted. Maybe you can wait on tables somewhere.

Instead of talking behind breeders backs on how bad you think they are. Be the leader you are paid to be, and teach them the right way. Lets stop puppy mills by ending this ridiculous term that harms more then it helps. Just stop using it . That is if you do love animals and your fellow human being.

(Report Comment)
Birgitta lauren July 2, 2009 | 3:43 p.m.

Amen!!!
Good one. and very informative.
from a registered breeder.

(Report Comment)
Ayn Rand July 2, 2009 | 4:56 p.m.

Puppy mill. There, I said it. Deal with it.

It's silly and counter-productive to argue semantics. Instead, responsible breeders should be focused on helping wipe out the puppy mills. If you want the label to go away, then help make the problem go away.

(Report Comment)
Kim Townsend July 2, 2009 | 5:11 p.m.

Let's get the facts straight about Ms. Strange's letter.

1. Puppy Mill does have a legal meaning as determined by a court of law. Do your research!

2. We can call them "professional breeders" but it doesn't change the fact that dogs are raised as livestock, living their entire lives in small wire cages, packed in trailers like sardines in a can. I personally like the phrase "puppy mill" as that's exactly what they are doing -- milling puppies!

3. Ms. Strange uses the terms "substandard kennels." She says, apparently, that they aren't puppy mills either, they are just substandard. She goes on to define them as illegal and unlicensed facilities. I'm not sure how an illegal or unlicensed facility can have any standards set forth to follow. The truth is that STANDARDS are set by the USDA and by the state of Missouri, often referred to as "minimum standards." 50% of all USDA licensed dog breeders in Missouri VIOLATE THE STANDARDS on their inspections -- therefore making them SUBSTANDARD.

The rest of the comments about us so-called terrorists really aren't worth my effort to counter -- typical "chicken little" mentality we have come to expect from MoFED. Since they can't seem to convince the public that puppy mills don't exist, they try to convince them that the world is just one terrorist act away from the abolishment of all forms of agriculture in our country.

If you want the REAL truth about the pet industry, and/or, if you have purchased a puppy from a pet store, visit our website at www.petshoppuppies.org. We are a 501c3 charity, and believe it or not Ginger, we have ZERO paid employees and I have never taken a dime from donations for my personal use. NEVER, and furthermore, I spend about 60 hours a week running the organization, and my own car, house, phone service, internet service, etc., etc., etc., to keep the organization going. I pay these bills out of my own pocket, not with donations.

(Report Comment)
Tyler Brun July 2, 2009 | 9:20 p.m.

"We can call them "professional breeders" but it doesn't change the fact that dogs are raised as livestock, living their entire lives in small wire cages, packed in trailers like sardines in a can. I personally like the phrase "puppy mill" as that's exactly what they are doing -- milling puppies!" I quote KT. What a narrow-minded comment! You are stating that anyone that is licensed are raising dogs in cages and packed like sardines! PLEEEZ! Have you read the requirements to become license? Didn't you use to raise hunting dogs years ago? Not all kennels are the same just like a Nursing Home or Daycare Center there are good and bad ones. I'm sure the "Professional Breeders" are getting tired of the not-so-professional breeders giving the good ones that raise healthy pets a black eye. You must have a good paying job to work 60 hours a week and donating all your time and money but, if you spend 60 hours a week donating your time I guess you don't have a job, so where does the money come from? Oh yes, way to put your little plug in for your site!

(Report Comment)
Karen Loveless July 2, 2009 | 9:39 p.m.

Well said Kim! I think Karen Strange and her buddies realize they are slowly but surely losing the battle. They will do anything to make people think we are merely extremists that are making a situation much worse than it really is, but with mill busts happening almost weekly in many different states, it is getting harder and harder for them to garner support for their side. Truly ethical breeders are against puppy mills so I guess that tells us a lot about the so-called ethical breeders who commented here.

As for Ginger's comments -they are downright laughable. Mennonites and the Amish are being exposed for what many of them really are - known animal abusers and puppy millers. The men rule the roost and everything else is beneath them -women, animals, etc. Also, if you put an ad for a free dog in the paper, you will be lucky to hear from anyone much less a rescue. The only dogs rescue people would try to get would be an unaltered dog so it doesn't wind up as a breeder. Other than that, a buncher would be more likely to answer a free to a good home ad. In the South the last thing we need to do is answer free ads when the shelters are overflowing with unwanted animals - many purebred.

Another thing - anyone that rescues mill dogs usually has to put serious money into getting them healthy enough to adopt out. I am speaking from years of experience just in case you are wondering. They must charge a fee to recoup some costs or they can't help any other animals. I do know there are bad rescue groups out there and those that pose as rescue groups only as a front but that is far rarer than puppy mills.

In my experience though, I have never seen a profitable rescue but I have seen MANY, MANY profitable puppy mills.

(Report Comment)
James Reese July 3, 2009 | 3:46 a.m.

'Responsible breeders' are not offended by the term because they care about the integrity of their breed. Responsible breeders understand that the term does not apply to anyone that breeds dogs but to those who place profit above the happiness of their companion animals. By expressing annoyance with the term one reveals that they have something to be ashamed of. All of the defensive language you can muster cannot cover your guilt.

(Report Comment)
joann stephan July 3, 2009 | 7:59 a.m.

Karen Strange and MoFed continue their fear-mongering, saying that breeders being better regulated is the first step towards no one being allowed to have pets. Nonsense. They refuse to recognize that there are many, many people out here who care about the *welfare* of dogs. Caring about a dog's day-to-day living condition shouldn't be something that breeders fear, unless they don't care about their dogs' condition.

People working against puppy mills want to be able to live with dogs, but not at any price. It is not "animal rights" to say that a dog shouldn't spend its entire life in a wire cage 6 inches bigger than it is, and if I don't want any dog treated that way, that doesn't mean I am against dogs or don't want people to have dogs.

Not only is Missouri the puppy mill capital of the U.S., but the Dept of Agriculture promotes this industy via its "Blue Ribbon Kennel" program. Those dogs haven't been any closer to a blue ribbon than to the moon, and the differences in requirements to be a "blue ribbon" kennel are minimal, e.g., "no rust" on cages and no junked cars on the property. Now there's something to be proud of.

(Report Comment)
Elizabeth Williams July 3, 2009 | 10:43 a.m.

Is it "proper" to ask if Ms. Strange is still the Hobby Breeder representative on the ACFA committee? When was the last time she had a dog entered in a dog show (that wasn't an APRI show)? How many "show dogs" does she own/breed?

Is it a conflict of interest for the President (and Vice-President) of MOFED to be members of the ACFA committee? Those 2 are the only people who haven't been replaced since the committee was formed.

There is a Commercial Breeder representative on the committee, and since Ms Strange is SO concerned about the commercial breeders being called "puppy millers", isn't she a "duplicate" Commercial Breeder representative? Why do the Commercial Breeders have two representatives on the ACFA committee? When will the Hobby Breeders get a "legitimate" Hobby Breeder representative on the ACFA committee?

Are you doing "any" genetic testing on your breeding stock (CERF'ing eyes, OFA'ing hips, testing for heart problems, etc.)? If not, you ARE a puppy mill.

What age does the breed club specify breeding your bitch/female? If you can't wait that long, then you ARE a puppy mill.

Are you aware of the breed standards, and trying to breed dogs that comply with the breed standard? If not, you ARE a puppy mill.

And it should be noted that Ms. Strange spends more time at breeder conferences spewing hatred against animal advocates than teaching the puppy millers, including the Amish and Mennonites who are practically illiterate, about humane animal husbandry and breed standards. I attended a PA show last year and let me tell you, the Amish and Mennonite millers were bored and disinterested in what she had to say. She spoke not one word about improving their kennels or the lives of their so-called breeding stock.

You’re getting old, Karen, and so is your message.

(Report Comment)
Mary Scott July 3, 2009 | 11:35 p.m.

Ms Strange doth protest too much.

Mr Aldrich, please do your research on Karen Strange before believing that she speaks for reputable breeders, those breeders who do not mass breed puppies, who do genetic testing on the parents, who meet in person and screen potential owners, who do not keep the breeding parents in wire cages 24 hours a day with no exercise nor socialization, who do not have the need to be USDA licensed because they would never allow their puppies to be sold to a broker nor through a pet store, who do not put profit above the physical and emotional well-being of the dogs they breed.
All the puppy mill industry has left is to make it seem that those who are concerned about the inhumane living conditions are freaks, maniacs and terrorists. To admit that we are simply average citizens would reduce their argument to the nonsense that it is.
If it walks like a duck....

(Report Comment)
Jeffrey Jones July 7, 2009 | 6:13 a.m.

Late 1890s until 1906 timeframe.
"Doggie" George Frederick Miller was well known to O. Robinson Casey, the 10-year professional baseball player who founded the Humane Society of Central New York. George Frederick Miller also played baseball. Their playing careers were simultaneous, except that Doggie Miller played a while longer. Casey, a power hitter who often struck out, was widely believed to have inspired "Casey At The Bat." He identified himself
as the legendary Casey, and was a very popular public speaker on animal cruelty until he died in 1932, while investigating a horse neglect case.

Casey, an early critic of commercial dog breeding, apparently referred to George Frederick Miller as "Doggie" because Mr. Miller raised hunting dogs. So one may say in the same profession Casey did not see eye to eye with George Frederick Miller and began calling him Doggie Miller, thus the term was born and was morphed over time to puppy miller. This term actually has no meaning as to one who mills anything. The term was taken over the years by the animal rights radicals meaning anyone who breeds a dog is somehow a "puppy mill" and used to pull on emotions of the general public who have seen via animal rights videos and media who have used these visuals to solicit sympathy.
Actually the term has to do with a surname and not anything to do with the miller of anything. The term doggy miller was used in newspaper ads in the early 1900s. It has been said that Casey mentioned "Doggie Miller" in his speeches at times but have been unable to verify this as I have been unable to find any speeches given by Casey.

People who breed dogs are called breeders and breeder is not a dirty word. The real agenda of animal rights is to end animal ownership and certainly "puppy mill" brings up heartfelt visuals supplied by the animal rights zealots in the media. The effort is not to protect animals but to end animal ownership. Again the term has nothing to do with milling of anything but morphed from a man's nickname and surname. That would be like calling everyone who worked for animal welfare, animal rights zealots and there is a difference, between animal welfare and animal rights. Do you?
Jeff

(Report Comment)
Karen Strange July 7, 2009 | 8:23 a.m.

What interesting comments. Those who are so interested in firing comments need to research the animal rights movement and the agenda being spread throughout the country.I question those who are posting such flaming remarks. You will be screaming the loudest when there is a knock on your door to remove your animals.
For too long, animal rights activists have spread propaganda against the dog breeding industry in order to raise funds. HSUS is a master at such tactics, and after many years of deceiving the public, are now using those funds to go after other agriculture interests. Many followers who do not know or understand their tactics are helping an agenda that will eventually lead to the elimination of pets altogether.
I do not apologize to anyone for the work I have done against the animal rights movement. My job is not to teach animal husbandry but to inform others about the strangling agenda of the animal rights movement. Those who attack are merely showing their lack of knowledge.
I spent many years showing dogs, health testing, and competing for titles. None of that is important if we do not maintain our rights to have dogs.
Calling others by slur names is not acceptable. I will continue to stand my ground on that issue. The names you are calling others today will be the names you are called tomorrow, but there will come a time when it will be too late to protect your interests. Those of us who have been fighting the animal rights movment for nearly two decades will have little sympathy for those who merely jumped on the bandwagon of a movement that is dedicated to eliminating animal ownership and agriculture altogether.

(Report Comment)
L Cook July 7, 2009 | 9:03 a.m.

The rabid comments to this article really make the point of the article. Do you all ever look beyond the narrow skewed picture presented by the animal rights nuts to find the truth? Karen is correct in her article and I admire her for being willing to stand up and take the heat from the fanatics. Nothing is accomplished until those that are taking a mob mentality (such as being promoted by HSUS and other such groups) get their heads out of their rears to help in some positive ways. Not all breeders are 'puppy mills' nor are all rescues squeeky clean in what they do. Why don't you all work on getting the bad apples out of your own industry (yes, rescues are an industry) before you condemn someone working to better things in her own. And NO I am not a member of MoFed or a large breeder. I'm just more educated about the issues than most of you here. I bothered to try to find out the truth in the piles of poop being put out by fanatics. Keep up the good work Karen!

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby July 8, 2009 | 11:41 a.m.

The first thing that everyone should know is that these animal rights activists believe that all use of animals is abuse. They don't define it the way that the rest of us do.

Thank you, Kim Townsend, for trying to deflect the terrorism issue. You know that this is something that we have the animal rights movement dead to rights on, as far as overt criminal activity goes. What you said actually tends to affirm the fact that the animal rights movement is a human-hating terrorist movement.

Your "Best Friends" originated as a Satanic church that called itself the "Process Church" in the 1970s. It is also an end of the world cult and thinks that it is what would result if Satan and Jesus had a love child. Your "Best Friends" magazine refers to humanity as "destructive humanity." These facts are easy to find on the Net. It is also true that a group that calls itself "Hugs for Puppies" was just a few years ago the SHAC group that used physical violence, arson, death threats, and beatings against Huntingdon Life Sciences.

It is irresponsible of any state's attorney general to work with a group like the HSUS. When it comes to dogfighting, they might be working with John Goodwin who was jailed for two years for a string of attacks against mink farmers and other agriculture. When they attack dog breeders they are also attacking a needed industry and the HSUS hasn't made it a secret that they want to end all animal-based agriculture. I'm surprised how long Wayne Pacelle has gotten away with talking out of both sides of his mouth on that one. I'm also surprised how easy it has been for the HSUS and the Processeans to get state attorneys general to participate in such crooked endeavors as "puppy mill" busts.

I see that Karen Loveless is here, someone who is trying to destroy the business of dog breeding in North Carolina by pushing for the passage of destructive and unfair laws.

Zach Aldrich, you definitely need to do more research. These waves of attacks on commercial breeders have been around for more than forty years. There is a lot of material out there about the way that the animal rights activists have added so much corruption to the idea of ensuring that dogs are bred in humane conditions.

I think that the so-called puppy mill is almost always a better deal for the dogs than the so-called humane societies.

Thomas Kirby
www.animalculture.org

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby July 8, 2009 | 12:01 p.m.

Owners seem to be "slowly losing" because of all the attacks by extremists, all the "puppy mill" raids by those who are misled by the extremists, and the well-financed lobbyists who help feed lies to our legislatures. However, you can only work by lying and violence for so long before it comes back to bite you, and you extremists are very destructive to the cause that you pretend to represent, so we will win eventually. Fascists have never been able to win anything for the long term. They just cause a lot of destruction in the short term, of themselves and their causes. They actually have to wait for decent people to rebuild before they can do it again when there isn't enough left to destroy.

This animal rights thing isn't a philosophy. It's a mental illness disguised, poorly, as a philosophy.

(Report Comment)
Jennifer Borman July 9, 2009 | 5:02 p.m.

I find it hilarious that there is an argument that those againist puppy mills are against all breeding. Duh. Why do you think we're involved in this cause? We love dogs. We don't want them to suffer. We don't want to see breeds disappear! Every single person I've protested with has their favorite breed. You people are so ridiculous and an embarrassment to all clear-thinking individuals.

(Report Comment)
Lisa Biatch July 12, 2009 | 6:32 p.m.

Jennifer, I couldn't agree with your more! And that's exactly why the HSUS receives so much in donations (including mine -- a dog lover who has a dogs from "real" purebred breeders in addition to a rescue.) Anybody who doesn't see suffering from these inhumane mass breeding operations has a screw loose and these ridiculous agruments to coopt the pet owning public. e.g., the end of all dogs, are sheer insanity. The agribusiness of puppy factory farming will soon be a horror of the past, and I guess these "professional breeders" will have to go back to being "professional" pig farmers. Let the breeders who actually do health testing, socialize their puppies, sell on contract and screen their puppy buyers disassociate themselves from these puppy millers who don't seem to understand that dogs are different from pigs. Most people I know don't eat their dogs.

(Report Comment)
Diane richards July 13, 2009 | 5:47 p.m.

I really can't believe what I am reading here. Those of you who are so offended by the word puppy mill should be worried. The public is sick and tired of commercial breeders who breed only for profit. Reputable breeders who are concerned about the integrity of their breed have nothing to be worried about with the attorney general's enforcement of Missouri law. They aren't puppy mills! Those of you who are "licensed" by the USDA should be worried as should the countless other puppy mills who aren't licensed. There will come a time when all pet stores won't sell your inferior USDA licensed "cash crops." The majority of the American public is sick and tired of breeders who breed only for money at the expense of all the dogs you keep imprisoned for breeding stock. The public recognizes that there are far too many dogs out there in shelters and in rescue - many who are purebreds-and they know and will keep passing the message "ADOPT DON'T SHOP"

(Report Comment)
jill brown February 23, 2011 | 3:28 p.m.

Oh the times, the are a changin'. The jig is up and the public is becoming increasingly aware of the problems with breeding dogs for profit with little or no regard for the dogs. Call it what you want. Dog breeding. Factory farming. Puppy milling. It is irrelevant.

Calling those of us who care about dogs and who voted for Prop B "nuts" and "fanatics" and "out to end agriculture or pet ownership" is ABSURD. Your old tired brush has a very wide, and misplaced, stroke, Ms. Strange.

Unfortunately, the old conspiracy theory mantra is wearing thin. Most of us that voted for Prop B are not animal rights activists. Or radicals. Or the like. We are just ordinary citizens that are sick of the abuse. How long will you continue to use the HSUS to sound your battle cry? Its getting tired and old. It may work on farmers that you have scared to death, so that dog breeders can hide behind them and continue the abuses. Most cattle in Missouri are living the life of Riley compared to these breeding dogs.

Jigs up. Word is out. Time to clean house. And kennel.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire February 23, 2011 | 4:17 p.m.

Karen Strange really said....
"You will be screaming the loudest when there is a knock on your door to remove your animals."
"Many followers who do not know or understand their tactics are helping an agenda that will eventually lead to the elimination of pets altogether."
This, of course, did not exceed the statements by Mr. Thomas Kirby...
"What you said actually tends to affirm the fact that the animal rights movement is a human-hating terrorist movement."
"HSUS hasn't made it a secret that they want to end all animal-based agriculture."
"This animal rights thing isn't a philosophy. It's a mental illness disguised, poorly, as a philosophy."
"Your "Best Friends" originated as a Satanic church that called itself the "Process Church" in the 1970s. It is also an end of the world cult and thinks that it is what would result if Satan and Jesus had a love child."
It might be well that I refrain from discussing my opinion of his best friends...

(Report Comment)
Anne Robertson May 16, 2011 | 1:02 p.m.

I guess it's rather STRANGE that some people can't handle the truth.

If it looks like a puppy mill, and is abusive like a puppy mill then ? IT MUST BE A PUPPY MILL.

Playing GAMES and calling it something else doesn't make it any less abusive it's just one more example of how the people running these puppy mills are deceptive. And why be deceptive if the truth is not a bad thing.

Puppy mill owners have a lot of money/influence and will say just about anything. Anyone into something profitable will be protected by any means possible - buy a senator - lie, none of it matters as long as PUPPY MILL OWNERS get to keep making money off the unfortunate animals suffering under what passes as their "care".

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements