Imagine a dog forced to stand for hours in the hot sun without shelter, or a puppy suffering from a condition so severe that one eye was sealed shut with a crusted-over discharge. Or a puppy who lost a leg after another dog attacked him. Or puppies who died in a cold, barren cage. Who would make the case that we should not take steps to protect animals from such neglect and suffering?
According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General report released last month, however, these are the kinds of violations the USDA has discovered time and again at regulated, large-scale dog breeding facilities—puppy mills—across the United States. And this isn’t the first time that such violations have been documented. It’s occurred across administrations, both Republican and Democratic, for years.
The internal report is critical of the agency’s performance record in dog breeder inspection actions under the Animal Welfare Act. Its most chilling conclusion is that scofflaw breeders pose “a threat to the well-being and safety of their dogs, leaving them vulnerable to neglect, mistreatment, and suffering.”
Among other findings, the OIG report determined that 80% of the dog breeders re-inspected during the audit period (the date is redacted but we know it’s post-2020) had not fully corrected situations that included violations such as excessive feces and flies, lack of water, matted hair, untreated dental disease, enclosures with sharp edges and/or damaged floors, and untreated eye problems.
When it comes to the AWA, across the full range of issues, we have consistently championed the principle of effective enforcement. The strength and integrity of enforcement programs are a matter of fundamental conviction for us, because, to state the matter plainly, animals are entirely at our mercy. We believe that our institutions of government have a responsibility to protect them.
In addition to good enforcement, we believe that stronger and better legal standards for animal care are essential too. That’s why we support the Puppy Protection Act, re-introduced this week by Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., Jim McGovern, D-Mass., Guy Reschenthaler, R-Pa., and Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif. This well-conceived measure would require more spacious dog runs, solid flooring instead of wire that injures dogs’ paws, better protection from severe weather and feedings at least twice per day.
Operators of breeding facilities would also be expected to make reasonable efforts to find retired breeding dogs a home or a rescue placement instead of just killing them.
In the last Congress, the PPA attracted substantial bipartisan support, with 237 co-sponsors in the House, and we’re sure that with your help, we can bring it to passage this time around.
That said, we want you to understand what we’re up against— and who we’re up against—when it comes to effective regulation of the puppy mill industry.
Commercial dog breeders who sell to pet stores, brokers or online sight-unseen are required to obtain a USDA license, undergo regular inspections and comply with standards of care defined in the AWA.
However, under the minimal standards now in place, breeders can keep dogs in cramped, wired-floor cages with scant protection from bitter cold or scorching hot weather. They can breed female dogs again and again until their bodies give out, even if the dogs have congenital defects that can be passed on to their puppies, generation after generation. And of course, once they are worn out, these mother dogs can be killed, abandoned or sold at auction.
This is, to say the very least, a curious reaction, since many of the cited breeders in the OIG audit register their dogs with the AKC. And of course, they are in this report because they have not been meeting the current needs and requirements of dogs in their care.
The AKC has consistently disparaged the PPA, implying incorrectly (among other complaints) that the bill would shut down small and hobby breeders. The truth is this: The PPA pertains only to dog breeders with more than four breeding females who sell puppies “sight unseen,” such as online or at a pet store.
Surely, the premise that dogs deserve to grow and live in decent and comfortable situations that provide shelter and safety is not a controversial one. How can it be that thousands of dogs in USDA-licensed commercial breeding operations that sell to pet stores and online still have none of these basic comforts?
All of us—dogs, consumers, regulators, legislators and animal advocates — have lived with this dismal state of affairs long enough. With this practical and realistic measure reintroduced, we’re going to push hard for its passage in the 119th Congress.
Finally, we’re going to recommit to passage of the Better Care for Animals Act, which will be reintroduced shortly in both the House and Senate. The Better CARE Act enjoys strong bipartisan support and attracted 219 cosponsors in the House and 38 in the Senate during the 118th Congress. Its objective is to augment the legal authority of the Department of Justice in order to strengthen the possibilities of collaboration between that agency and the USDA in enforcing provisions of the Animal Welfare Act.
We’ve witnessed the impact of multi-agency coordination in major cases, including one in which Humane World for Animals played a key part, that of the Envigo beagles. We hope that Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and Attorney General Pam Bondi will carefully evaluate the positive outcomes in that case and work to bring their respective agencies into closer alignment when it comes to enforcement efforts.
So long as dogs continue to suffer in large-scale, factory-like facilities, we’ll be tireless in putting animal welfare first, because improving the quality of life for such animals is the right thing to do, and setting the animal welfare bar higher in this area is a simple matter of common sense.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
