Policy Changes in Pet

Stores for a Better

Future
Abstract
Despite the negative connotations surrounding puppy mills, not much has
been done to inhibit their business. Along with that, animal shelters and humane
societies are always filled to the brim with older pets looking for a home. If a
policy were enacted that prohibited pet stores from selling animals received from
places other than shelters, the United States would see a huge decrease in output
from commercial breeders as well as a reduction of animals staying in shelters for
long periods of time. This issue brief will go into further detail about the problems
of current pet laws and how the new plan would benefit pets, families, shelters, and
eventually pet stores too.

1
Introduction
Many people have memories from their childhood of running up to pet store
windows and staring at the adorable puppies and kittens. Sometimes, if enough
begging occurred, the child would even be able to hold one of the animals and
experience the cuteness up close. However, little do they know that 99% of the
dogs in pet stores are obtained from puppy mills.1 In the past few years, it has been
a huge goal on the part of organizations like the American Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and the Humane Society of the United
States (HSUS) to put an end to puppy mills. They are also diligently working
towards finding a solution to re-home current pets found in shelters. But the work
of ASPCA and HSUS is not enough. They need the help of pet stores around the
United States to fully combat this problem. There is a relatively new legislation
that many cities, like Los Angeles and Philadelphia, have already adopted that can
achieve both results that the ASPCA and HSUS are aiming for. Specifically, the
law prohibits the sale of commercially bred pets, such as dogs, cats, and rabbits, in
pet stores and other retail businesses. By banning the sale of animals acquired from
places other than humane societies or shelters, commercial breeders primary
customers will decline and it will help shelters stay empty.

How The Issue Began

Shortly after World War II, to make money, farmers started to breed and sell
their puppies to pet stores, thus forming what are now called puppy mills. Pet
stores jumped on this bargain as a way to increase their profits, however,
unbeknownst to them, many of the farmers were not taking care of the puppies and
the conditions in which they were raised were horrible.2 As a clarification, the
ASPCA defines a puppy mill as a large-scale commercial dog breeding facility
where profit is given priority over the well-being of the dogs.3 One such example
of the horrible conditions is that they used old refrigerators and rabbit cages to
house the dogs.2 While puppy mills are not known for being on farms anymore, the
idea of poor conditions has been tied to commercial breeders ever since, and small
cages for the animals are still seen today. As soon as people acknowledged how
bad the puppy mill situation was, there were many efforts from companies like
ASPCA, HSUS, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), along
with caring citizens to put an end to it. While the movement is not as far along as
desired, there have been moments where it shifted in the right direction. One
example of the shift was when Los Angeles, one of the biggest cities yet, passed a
law that not only banned pet stores from acquiring puppies from commercial
breeders, but also banned cats and rabbits as well. Under this law, they can only
put pets from shelters, humane societies, or registered rescue groups up for sale.
2
Although people can still purchase puppies or other animals from breeders, the pet
stores in LA can only sell animals from the three previously mentioned sources.4
Other cities that have passed similar legislation to stop puppy mills include: San
Diego, CA, Chicago, IL, Miami Beach, FL, Pittsburgh, PA, and Philadelphia, PA.5
With big cities such as these jumping on the bandwagon, it is the optimal time to
encourage every city to do it.

Current State of Pet Store Laws and the Animal Welfare Act
Today, numerous cities in the U.S. have at least some laws for the care of
animals in pet stores, but when it comes to preventing puppy mills from selling
dogs to them, the regulations are almost nonexistent.6 The main law that
commercial breeders and pet stores have to abide by is the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA). Under this regulation, animals bred for commercial sale or medical
research must be cared for with certain standards.7 The United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) is in charge of enforcing the AWA across the U.S. and
must conduct random inspections of all locations that have obtained a license or
are registered under the AWA. Despite a seemingly useful law, the standards are
too minimal to truly protect the precious dogs, and properly enforcing the AWA
everywhere is beyond the USDAs abilities. Some appalling conditions allowed
under the AWA include: having as many dogs as they want at the site, using
stacked cages with wire bottoms, dogs can be kept in the cages 24/7, and the worst
one is that unwanted animals may be killed or sold to another place.8 The reasons
behind the conditions are sometimes even more horrifying. For example, wire
cages are used because it allows the animals waste to fall through, giving
caretakers further excuse to never take them out for even a short period of time.9
Essentially, the AWA offers hardly any safety at all. Even with only the poor
quality laws in place, certain states have been able to rise above others with the
level of safety for their pets. For instance, in 2012, Virginia was ranked 1st in
having the best laws for protection of puppy mill dogs and the people that bought
them. On the contrary, states like Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota had the
lowest rankings, and protection laws are few and far between.10 In image 1, it
shows that each states position on pet protection laws has not changed too much
since 2012. Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota, are all still in the bottom tier
and Virginia is still in the top tier. However, Virginia is no longer the state with the
best laws, as it got replaced by Illinois for that position.

3
 Image 1.11

In 2012, Melanie Kahn, the senior director for the Puppy Mills Campaign
for the HSUS said, Too many states still allow these puppy factories to operate
with minimal or no oversight, resulting in suffering for the dogs and families that
purchase these often sick puppies.10 In order to inhibit the work of commercial
dog breeders, as it seems the AWA is not doing enough, the law that bans pet
stores from selling puppies bought from commercial breeders needs to be
implemented in more cities. It may be a contentious issue when talking about why
a law should not just be implemented for all states that directly bans commercial
breeders from running their unethical businesses, but the explanation is simple. Not
only will this hinder the demand for commercial puppy breeders to constantly
mass-produce dogs, but it will also help diminish the number of older pets looking
for new homes. Subsequently, the typically overlooked dogs will have a better
chance of finding a good family and the puppy mills primary customers will not
be available anymore. Also, if the direct approach was used and commercial
breeders were outright banned, a black market for puppies could be created and
there would be no one to control how they treat the baby animals and their
mothers. At least now there is some form of regulation for them, but if a black

4
market for animals were to form, there would be nothing in regards to
management. With states finally realizing that commercial breeders usually care
more about money than the welfare of the pets they produce, now is as good of a
time as ever to change the way pet stores work.

Unfavorable Reaction to Overcrowded Shelters and How to Prevent

It
Approximately 3.3 million dogs and 3.2 million cats enter shelters
nationwide each year. Of those put into a shelter, approximately 1.5 million of the
animals are sadly euthanized.12 As a result, many states are trying to alleviate the
amount of animals that enter shelters. To do that, they must find a way for the
current pets to find new homes and to help stop the constant influx of new pets into
the shelters that are already over-crowded. A good place to start is with changing
the type of pets that can be sold at pet stores. As it is now apparent, many of these
retailers have been known to receive their baby animals from puppy mills. Along
with health issues resulting from living in such an environment, they may also have
numerous behavioral problems such as fear, aggression, anxiety, difficulty being
house-trained and difficulty being around other animals/people.9 While these
problems could eventually be overcome with a lot of patience and training, not all
pet-owners will be able to handle it or they may not want to put in any effort to
correct the behavior. In this scenario, they would be very likely to give the animal
to a shelter, thus further expanding the number of pets entering them. So, the new
law for pet stores could also help shelters in an indirect way. With less pets that are
born with health and behavioral problems due to improper treatment, there will be
less entering shelters because unsuspecting families bought a commercially bred
dog and could not handle the problems the pet came with.

Recommendations for Pet Stores and USDA

The Petco Foundation has exceeded expectations in trying to help pets find
new homes. Petco stores across the U.S. hold adoption event weekends that have
fun themes, marketing tools for organizations that participate in the event, and
other incentives to get more involvement.13 The proposed recommendation for this
issue would be for pet stores, shelters, and rescue agencies to work together, like
Petco has, to place shelter animals and rescue dogs in loving homes. According to
Petco.com, More than 1,500 stores offer full on-site adoption centers or stationary
cat habitats where partners can house and promote their adoptable pets.13 The pet
stores across the nation can adopt a similar platform to assist with the
over-crowding of animal shelters. With this store initiative intact, the U.S. could
finally see the collapse of puppy mills, and pet stores would no longer have the bad
5
reputation of being known for selling commercially bred animals. This is the most
ideal recommendation for the matter because the disadvantages of such a plan
would mostly be in the commercial breeders area and the benefits for it range
from monetary to moral reasons. Monetary benefits would come from the fact that
shelters would spend less money providing places for the pets because they would
be at pet stores instead. The moral benefits come in when people realize that they
gave a home to a less fortunate animal, and by purchasing a shelter animal instead
of a puppy from an unknown setting, it also shows commercial breeders that their
work is not condoned by the general public.
Another recommendation that could help these innocent animals would be to
change the AWA. With stricter conditions to obey, the commercial breeders would
need to pick up the slack and take proper care of the animals or bear the chance of
being closed down by the USDA. This method would clear up the puppy mill
situation but there are some drawbacks to it. Firstly, it does nothing to help shelters
overflowing with animals, so it would only solve one problem. And also, the
USDA is already overwhelmed with enforcing the minimal requirements of the
original AWA. The USDA may not be able to handle an increase in requirements
to check for. Accordingly, the first recommendation would be a better solution to
the problem.

Impact of the Legislation on Families, Shelters, Personal Breeders,

Pet Stores, and Commercial Breeders
For the cities considering passing legislations similar to the one in Los
Angeles, there are certain benefits to the new law. It would successfully merge pet
stores and shelters to improve the lives of dogs that typically would not be chosen
over the cute little puppy in the window. Families that want to purchase pets will
be positively impacted because they will not have to worry about the animals
questionable upbringing. No longer would those families have to face the
heartbreak of a pet passing away soon after it is purchased because it had a serious
health condition. Animal shelters will be positively impacted because the number
of animals inhabiting the locations would be reduced and they can even improve
on the conditions of the few that still get placed in a shelter. Additionally, they may
no longer need to kill the dogs when there are too many. If 1.5 million animals that
are in shelters get euthanized each year, think of how much that number would
decrease when they become the primary animals to be sold from pet stores. Pet
breeders that typically only sell puppies one litter at a time will be positively
impacted because they would not have to compete with pet stores that get dogs
from a variety of commercial breeders who fail to take care of their pets. When
someone goes to purchase a dog from a local pet breeder, they are actually able to
6
go in and see how the pets are raised and what the conditions are like. Thus, the
personal breeders are held more accountable for how they treat them. This is not
the case with commercial breeders, therefore customers are never truly aware of
what their potential puppys birthplace was like. The anonymity and lack of
accountability for their business is an important reason to put an end to pet stores
being able to receive animals from them. Image 2 gives a more detailed
explanation of how personal or responsible breeders take better care of the animals
and deserve the profit more than puppy mills.

Image 2.14

There are only two groups that would have the chance of being negatively
affected by the new law. The first group being the pet stores themselves as they
would no longer be able to get away with selling their pets for over-inflated prices,
regardless if it is purebred or not. However, if the pet stores biggest concern is that
they cannot get away with selling pets at their usual costly amount, then they are
not that different from the puppy mills whose main goal is to make money without
benefiting any of the animals. Other pet stores would not have agreed to such a
plan if they knew it would only negatively affect them so there must be benefits for
them too, but are not as obvious as the benefits for the pets and customers. The
7
second group would be commercial breeders, but bearing in mind that they do not
take care of their own animals, they should not be able to have an input on where
pet stores can receive their pets. Now that the impact of the legislation has been
established for each respective group, feasibility of enacting it becomes the new
obstacle to address.

Feasibility of Enacting the New Legislation

When it comes to the level of difficulty pertaining to establishing the new
law, it all depends on how willing the pet stores are. Already, cities like Los
Angeles and Chicago have initiated the legislation to have pet stores only sell
rescue or shelter pets, so it is clearly not impossible for it to happen. Los Angeless
method of fostering the law started by making an ordinance in 2012 that prohibited
the sale of commercially bred dogs, cats, and rabbits in pet stores and other retail
businesses. They then set an expiration date of June 2016 where it would be
reevaluated.5 As history shows, they ended up finalizing the law when it was
reevaluated. Other cities could follow this method of enactment and it would give
them a sense of what it is like before fully putting the new rule in place. Even
briefly trying it as an ordinance before making the decision of keeping or
discarding the law would be better than the current state of the issue.

Final Thoughts on the Issue

Puppy mills and other commercial breeders are not going to suddenly
change the way they treat their pets. Instead, by establishing the law that prohibits
pet stores from selling animals received from commercial breeders or anyone other
than shelters or rescue groups, it accomplishes two tasks. Foremost, the indecent
behavior of commercial breeders would be inhibited whether they like it or not.
And secondly, it gives deserving pets a second chance for a good family. This plan
is not hard to employ, all it takes is willingness on the part of pet stores and the
government, as well as determination on everyones part for the better future of
animals. Perhaps someday pet store windows will be full of dogs and cats of all
ages looking for their forever home.

8
References

1. "Don't Buy into Puppy Mills." The Humane Society of the United States. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.
2. Remitz, Jessica. "History of Puppy Mills - Pet360 Pet Parenting Simplified."
Pet360. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.
3. "Puppy Mills." ASPCA. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.
4. Arnold, Brooke. "Los Angeles Permanently Bans the Sale of Non-Rescue Cats
& Dogs." The Catington Post. N.p., 21 Apr. 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.
5."Jurisdictions with Retail Pet Sale Bans." Best Friends. N.p., 06 Apr. 2017.
Web. 17 Apr. 2017.
6. "Pet Stores and the Law." Online Paralegal Programs. N.p., 23 May 2016.
Web. 17 Apr.2017.
7. "Animal Welfare Act." USDA APHIS | Animal Welfare Act. N.p., 27 Jan. 2017.
Web. 17 Apr. 2017.
8. "Puppy Mills and the Law." The Puppy Mill Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr.
2017.
9. Lacoste, Kristine. "Common Health and Behavior Problems in Puppy Mill
Dogs." Petful. N.p., 13 July 2015. Web. 18 Apr. 2017.
10. "The HSUS Ranks State Puppy Mill Laws." The Humane Society of the
United States. N.p., 12 Mar. 2012. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.
11. "2015 Report Released: Best & Worst Animal Protection Laws by State."
Animal Legal Defense Fund. N.p., 16 Dec. 2015. Web. 19 Apr. 2017.
12. "Pet Statistics." ASPCA. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.
13. "Host Pet Adoption Events in Petco Stores." Petco Foundation. N.p., n.d.
Web. 17 Apr. 2017.
14. Lizik, Regina. "Las Vegas Just Took A Huge Step To Stop Puppy Mills."
BarkPost. N.p., 08 Jan. 2016. Web. 19 Apr. 2017.