Tired of the hack job, Tulsa (10/23/2007 4:06:14 AM)

Another day, another attempt to paint small breeders as puppy mills.

I repeat the question I asked last time. Is the Tulsa World going to return all that nasty money it made from the HUNDREDS of pet sales classifieds featured right here on this website, or is only bad for others to make money from puppy sales?

Shame on you. Either you are being hypocritical in profiting from that nasty old puppy industry in Oklahoma, or you have grossly exagerated the actions of a few disreputable breeders for the sake of sensationalism and profit. Which one is it?

Arfy, (10/23/2007 8:01:56 AM)

When are you going to donate some of the money you made being a puppy mill # 1?

Joe, Tulsa (10/23/2007 8:03:15 AM)

This series of articles has so far focused on a lot of bad and very little good. To say all breeders are bad is wrong and to as with this article, we see people starting to carve out little niches for themselves, it's ok to regulate the other guy but not me, or not the individual back yarder, or the guy who says he is a hobby breeder etc..

Most concerning is the author does not seem to demonstrate a working knowledge of what is legal and what is not, Even as far to say Pennsylvania leads the nation in regulation and inspection, is so far from the truth, the validity of the reporting is becoming suspect.

Inconsistencies within the regulations of the USDA and even from inspector to inspector, has long been a problem.

Lets us not forget, the government can not always be trusted to do a good job for us, they usually do a good job on us. Most Americans who live in the Midwest are honest, independant,and self reliant who reject governmental intervention of any kind.

Mention was made of the PAWS bill this was an attempt by the AKC and the HSUS to become appointed as the nations dog police. Which in our thinking is an excellent example of how far off base and uninformed the public actually is about the organizations. First the AKC is a "DOG Registry", nothing more and nothing less, The HSUS is one of the most successful fund raising organization in the United States, second only to the Red Cross, On closer review you will find huge salaries and expenses and very little as a percentage of the money ever goes to the benefit of any animal, We must give credit to the HSUS and the SPCA where credit is due, they successfully brutally kill more companion animals than anyone world wide.

Legislators who are looking forward to grabbing some press should remember the consequences, suffered by Sen. Sanitorium, PA he was the primary sponsor of PAWS. He has since been sent home in defeat... good riddance

Animal lovers nationwide sent millions in contributions to anyone who would run against him.

The message here is clear "Don't mess with the rights of Americans to have and own pets."

Not wanting to stray to far from the subject of Oklahoma's problems. We need to see a logical study of the entire industry, and the pitfalls as they exist. Caution needs to be taken when you start to put things on paper. and we must maintain respect of the individuals rights and his property rights. We must remember that while we as a people love our companion animals, we must not forget the fact that these animals are domesticated animals, what makes us think a dog or a cat is more important than a horse or a cow. The major difference is we don't eat cats and dogs here in America

To an intelligent thinker, you can see the problems presented in regulation expand rapidly, Who is the problem? Where do you start? Who is going to pay for it in the end?

There are far to many venues to allow one group to dominate input, Breeders need to be involved in the regulations for breeders, a statewide oversight organization for regulation input should be created and the committee should consist only of professional breeders who are in good standing. Self regulation is the key to successful development of any organization, when you start bringing in people with hidden agendas to destroy an industry segment, you will never have meaningful reform.

Local cities need to have local mandate for animal control in their jurisdiction. Each city or township needs to establish the regulations to be consistent with the needs and thinking of their community. A good example would be dog licensing and spay and neuter laws, community specific. The local cities need to over see and implement a local policy to allow shelters to kill or "Not Kill"

Stray animals.

Dog dumping and abandonment needs to be addressed with a mandatory microchip program so when a dog or cat is found to be abandoned the expenses for their rescue and or demise will be born by the owner of record, plus

Abby, Tulsa (10/23/2007 8:46:58 AM)

Instead of advertising all of these puppy mills, why doesn't the Tulsa World do the right thing and do a feature on animal rescue groups? Take a couple of weeks and recognize the real heroes. The rescue people who have to clean up the messes that these breeders leave behind. There are so many good rescue groups in the Tulsa Area. ARF, HALO, Animal Aid, Tulsa Boxer Rescue, Small Paws, Lab Rescue, Poodle Rescue, and many others!!!!!!!!!!!! Those are the people who need the publicity!!!!!!!!!!!!

Animal Lover, (10/23/2007 9:00:59 AM)

I was quite excited to see the beginning of this series on Sunday...now, I'm just more irritated and completely fascinated by the misquided ignorance that appears to run rampant through Oklahoma and other states. The main purpose of any regualtion should be for the WELFARE of the animals...not to further pad the pockets of the so-called "breeders". If you can't abide by the rules to come, then get out of the business! You're not in it for anything other than the thousands of dollars uneducated and unsuspecting consumers will spend to get that cute little puppy. I also a wee bit disgusted with Rep Denney's comments regarding the "backyard breeder" or the family who wants the kids to see the birth of puppies...it's exactly THOSE kinds of people along with the commercial breeders that contribute to the overwhelming pet population. Little Joey sits on 71st street to sell the puppies to pad the pockets of mom and dad. Meanwhile, puppies go home with unprepared families who pulled up to a stoplight, saw some dogs and decided to buy one! Folks, there are so many DOGS and CATS at PetsMart that need homes...and guess what, they're cheaper, they come with updated shot records, heartworm treatments and are spayed/neutered so that YOU won't further contribute to the pet problem. All of my pets are fixed, I'm not a breeder, I don't need my kids to watch "the miracle of birth" in person, I don't show my dogs and I'm not even sure if they are the best examples of their breeds both health-wise and look wise. So why wouldn't I fix them? I am not against organized, regulated dog breeding....I think that it should be monitored. I'm not sure if the USDA is exactly the right organization to monitor the pet industry, but I desperately believe that someone needs to speak for the animals....I agree that breeders should be the voice for the regulations, but I think the true definition of breeder needs to be thoroughly thought out. I'm not sure that Joe Schmoe should be considered a compasionate, educated breeder because he has 10 different breeds of dogs that spit out hundreds of puppies each year...he's exactly the sort of person that needs to be booted out!

hate puppy mills, tulsa (10/23/2007 10:36:02 AM)

Could anything make Oklahoma more white trash than a bunch of dogs all in one pin barely getting fed. I am so tired of people making money off of poor animals. If you cant afford to take GOOD care if your pets then DONT get them.

Ester, Sapulpa (10/23/2007 10:43:09 AM)

Curiously, the Tulsa World made $15,000 from the 300 ads in the Sunday paper under dog services. Times that by 52 Sundays per year adds up to a whooping 780000, give or take. That's no chump change.

Without warning, they unleashed upon the 300 or so people with ads a lynch mob of angry people who are demanding to come out to private homes so they can investigate and harass those very people. The Tulsa World unwittingly, has lumped anyone with a puppy for sale into one category "puppy mill" and therefore put them into a situation that could be dangerous for their family and pets.

Anyone who ran or is running an ad needs to cancel and collect a charge back from their bank. It's not safe for them at all, because anyone with a puppy for sale has now been lumped into one category no matter if they own 1 dog. I can only pray that nobody actually gets hurt because of the confusion or the angry lynch mob the TW unleashed, because that would be horrible.

The result is that innocent people who ran ads over the weekend, now have been lumped into the 'puppy mill group', and all their contact info is right there. Allowing them to be heckled and harassed at their very own homes by readers of this article. It's already happening. The TW took those people's 15000 and put them in danger.

C.G., Tulsa (10/23/2007 12:37:32 PM)

Everyone complaining about the story labelling everyone with a puppy for sale as "puppy millers" has roused my suspicions.

Someone who cares, Tulsa (10/23/2007 1:17:55 PM)

ADOPT FROM A RESCUE!!!!!! DO NOT BUY FROM PUPPY MILLS!!!!!! I agree with Abby, #4. Tulsa World needs to do feature stories on Tulsa area rescue groups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Animal rescue volunteers are THE GREATEST PEOPLE! Focus the attention on them!!!!!!!!!!!!

Susan, (10/23/2007 4:58:35 PM)

To those of you who want to throw brickbats at we who dare to call this author to account: Why don't you sit down, let out some steam, and take a moment to THINK about your responses instead of knee-jerk reacting?

Why? Well, because this article is INFLAMMATORY and it's main intent is to get people angry. Angry people don't take time to think things through, they simply react, and this is precisely the objective here. Do you truly believe that there is *no* connection between this series of articles and the upcoming legislation being proposed at the state level? Think about it. How much easier will it be for the AR nuts to ram through their idea of a Utopian society (meaning, one where there are NO pets allowed, because pets=slavery) if they can get a hue-and-cry established in the public with a bunch of inflammatory articles designed to make all breeders look like scum! This is a good way to see to it that breeders will not be allowed to be a part of the process of designing any so-called 'oversight' of the 'industry' because well, after all, they are all suspect. Never mind that this characterization is nowhere close to the truth, we don't have time to examine those numbers or consider their relationship with reality, we have to act... THAT is what this sort of thing leads to. So sit down and TAKE the time to think on this. For your sake, for our sake, and for the sake of the animals you *claim* to be championing.

You, "Arfy," are you taking the position that no one is allowed to comment on the hypocrisy of the World in printing this trash? Or else they *must* be a puppy mill. I see... you are either with us, or with the puppy mills, is that it? Are you unable, or just unwilling, to see the bias behind that belief? Do you not 'get' that it is pretty heinous for the World to print this sensationalist trash while they are profiting from the 'industry' they are pounding to the tune of hundreds of thousands a year?

And you, C.G... You are 'suspicious' of anyone who sees the hypocrisy and comments on it. Why? Or... do you not see that this is precisely the outcome these articles are hoping for? It looks more like you are being manipulated by the hyperbole than taking a moral high ground.

Do you really understand what you are saying here?

Susan, (10/23/2007 4:59:54 PM)

These articles, and their timing, are no accident. This is *exactly* the way that the AR hardliners manage to get their odious agendas forwarded... through media blitzes full of misinformation, manipulation, and outright demonization of all who dare to disagree with them. They have spent megabucks on similar campaigns in other states, Oklahoma is far from the first. As a born Okie and a genuine animal lover who just *happens* to be one of the directors of an incorporated rescue organization myself, I am deeply offended by the 'them against us' behavior that is being fostered by this article. Far from the way these articles depict it, the overwhelming majority of breeders ARE caring individuals, not nefarious puppy pimps out to prostitute their hapless animals for profit. Our organization works with many breeders, who work tirelessly in rescue themselves. Yet you guys sit out here in judgment making noise about things you know little or nothing about; running these people, and their hard work, down and lumping them into an ugly category without a shred of genuine insight. You parrot the comments from these articles as if they were Holy Writ without bothering to question anything. And why not? They are singing your favorite song. I wonder how many of you would really enjoy the kind of world that would come about if the AR groups actually did get their way? I wonder even more how many of you even know that the absolute abolition of all animal-human relationships is their stated purpose; it's no secret, it's all over their publicly posted websites.

I read from so many of you how you got your dogs from a shelter. Well, that's nice! and I'm glad you did that. But, the bottom line is that you want to own a PET. The shelter allows you a socially laudable venue to acquire that pet, but the fact is that for that animal to end up in that shelter, SOMEone had to have a litter of puppies...! Do you really understand that it was not a BREEDER who put your dog in that shelter? It was an OWNER. Get it right, for once, and stop vilifying the ones who make your pleasurable relationship with your pet possible in the first place...

We live in a throw away society. The reason animals end up in shelters are the same reasons that children end up in foster care: people who *think* they want a pet (or a child) but find out the reality of being responsible for another creature's daily care is more than they banked on. It is NOT because there are 'too many animals' any more than child abuse is because there are 'too many children.' And please remember, the BREEDERS are not the ones driving up to the shelters and dropping off loads of pups. It is the OWNERS who surrender them.

Are breeders part of the scenario? Somewhat; many could/should do a better job of screening prospective homes. But the bottom line is that THEY are not the ones dumping animals. Not to mention, the majority of animals in the shelters are not even remotely purebred; so who is responsible for those? Most animals in the shelter are mutts of dubious parentage, not even puppy mill products, certainly not the pups produced by thoughtful, caring breeders. Who do we kick for those?

The bottom line is, if you are a pet owner, then *you* own 'part of the problem,' not just the breeders. Because breeders only exist because people want to own pets. SOME pets end up in rescue, or shelters, just as some children end up in foster care, but even though that is a terrible and unhappy truth, it DOES NOT DESCRIBE the OVERWHELMING majority of pets, and their owners. To try and make the case that 'breeders' are responsible for shelters is akin to saying mothers are responsible for the fact that jails exist. Well, yeah, each of those inmates is someone's child, but are we going to start a campaign to eradicate motherhood to address the problem? THINK for once instead of knee jerk reacting!!

Susan, (10/23/2007 5:22:02 PM)

One last point: So far, we have only talked about 'pets' here. Sure, if what you want is a couch partner, then by all means go get your dog at a shelter, any dog can love you. But: One glaring omission in this discussion so far is the fact that many dogs are carefully and thoughtfully bred for specific purposes, some of them for generations, in order to produce highly specialized dogs for the betterment of humans and animals alike. Police dogs are not selected from shelters, nor are most search and rescue canines procured in that way. Nor many other specialized purposes such as seeing eye dogs, etc. The demands of the job are too rigorous, and the loss to the handler and team for a dog of uncertain parentage who develops health issues after all that specialized training is too great. SOMEone has to produce those dogs for those highly specific purposes. SOMEone has to take on the expense of testing for health issues. SOMEone has to select the best to go forward from, to make sure the next generation is a little more fit, and a little more healthy, than the one before. Here is a news flash: none of that comes cheap! But that *is* the while idea behind selective breeding: REDUCING PROBLEMS as well as selecting for important physical attributes necessary for certain vital tasks. This is why breeds were developed in the first place...!

Breeders are vilified for raising pups as if that were a heinous thing, as if the *only* outcome from breeding dogs is misery and neglect. This ignores the many MILLIONS of animals in caring, loving homes who vet them frequently and care for them as surrogate children. This ignores the many millions of loving owners whose happiness turns on their dog's joyous greeting when they return from work each day. To behave as if a shelter is the only, or most likely, end result for the 'product' that breeders produce is a gross misrepresentation. Yes, the numbers *sound* awful, but not so much if you put them in perspective with the OVERALL number of dogs and cats born each yr vs the ones who do end up in shelters. You will notice that this is NEVER done; because the AR contingent would rather that you choke on those big sounding numbers without having a real frame of reference. Again, the bias is real and it is a terrible injustice to ANY Oklahoma resident who chooses to breed their dog, for WHATEVER purpose. To be lumped into a category of social pariah without a single genuine reason is just plain WRONG.

C.G., Tulsa (10/23/2007 6:14:51 PM)

Susan: There are legitament breeders and puppy millers, my guess is there are more millers than breeders though, I don't really know. No one has identified themself as a breeder and said come to a specific address and see my business. I am suspicious.

Susan, (10/23/2007 7:35:59 PM)

CG: You prove my point precisely. You *assume* that bad breeders are in the majority. Why? Because these reporters are HORRIBLY irresponsible in writing these articles, they did *nothing whatsoever* to give you a REAL scope of the problem, they just threw out horrible sounding numbers for people to try and digest without anything to compare them to. That is hack reporting.

As for the oversight you are asking for: Who in the WORLD would want to be subject to some government official who wants to come out to their home and 'inspect' them? Do you not realize that most dog breeders who are doing it right (who ARE way in the majority, despite what these articles say) are raising these pups in their kitchens and in their bedrooms, beloved members of their families who are close to the family's coming and going? In point of fact, would *you* want to be subject to that level of invasion of privacy? This is one of those 'belling the cat' issues; where someone stands up and makes a proclamation about how life would be *so* much better if only bla-bla-bla, and the crowd cheers and they all agree it is SUCH a great idea, until the old mouse in the back stands up and says... but who will bell the cat? Incidentally, no one ever thanks the old mouse for pointing out the flaw in the plan; in fact often the crowd will shush him and dismiss his concerns as 'suspicious.' ;)

Finally, as I mentioned, I *was* the director of a local rescue organization for many years, and I still remain active despite advanced age. With this age has come a lot of experience in this issue. Yes, there is a problem with puppy mills, but it is not a new problem, it has always been here and will always be here, just like any other human criminal activity. But here is the real deal: the laws we have NOW are sufficient to deal with them. They are already shut down as fast as they pop up because they operate in violation of animal cruelty laws. There is no need to draft new laws when the current ones are sufficient; what is needed is better enforcement of existing laws, not more oversight. In point of fact, how do you think they are going to implement more laws when they can't even manage to enforce the ones already on the books because of shortage of manpower? This is not a problem of 'not enough oversight,' it is a problem of not enough warm bodies to patrol the outlying districts. Like most criminal enterprises, the bad guys do hide their operations, but they eventually get found out. But, when they are used, as this series of articles has been, to fuel an agenda that will do nothing to help but only hurt innocents, THAT is when I draw the line. Gilham and Kilman, and even moreso Vaughan as the supposed 'researcher' on this series, are grossly remiss in reporting inflated and inflammatory statistics to make it sound worse than it is. The reality is bad enough, but let's not make it worse with bad laws/regulations that do nothing to help.

C.G., Tulsa (10/23/2007 8:50:21 PM)

Susan: Neither of us trust the World reporters very much. This matter will be in the news much more as this thing moves along and I will pay close attention to it and the reporting on it.

Lulu, Jenks (10/23/2007 8:51:42 PM)

Calm down Susan before you have a stroke.

Are you by any chance a "breeder?"

All of my animals have come from the animal shelter or a rescue agency.

They have all be loving, wonderful, healthy pets and my best friends.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

I refuse to support breeders or "Luv a Pet."

Kate, Checotah (10/23/2007 10:34:46 PM)

14, be suspicious no more. Come see my kennels. I have 7 rat terriers and breed. My dogs are fully tested thru the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals for soundness for Cardiac, Patella, Elbows, Legg Calve Perthes, and Hips prior to breeding. Should any of my dogs fail any ONE of these areas, they are spayed or neutered and placed in pet homes. My kennels are heated and are 10 x 10 cement runs. The dogs have not only a large 100 x 60 play yard but 40 acres to run on and ponds to swim in and go for frequent walks with us. They are shown in the UKC ring and soon AKC ring. I have puppies which I sell as either pet or show. All pups are microchipped and vet checked prior to going to new homes, including frequent deworming and 2 sets of shots and all pets are spayed or neutered before leaving my premises NO EXCEPTIONS. They are mine forever. I have contracts that state should the new owner EVER not be able to keep the dog, I get the dog back or must approve of a new home it is going to. I work full time, and after work before I feed myself and family, my kennels are cleaned and dogs are fed and watered. I hope someday to have about 10 - 15 dogs. Reason being, if I am to BETTER the breed, I must keep breeding to "make" the best. Anyone who loves a breed and breeds for the betterment of the breed understands this. I am a breeder and some years have NO puppies, and some years multiple litters. Most puppy lists are full before a breeding takes place. If you breed correctly there is NO PROFIT. I am in the hole almost 10,000 this year alone, building new kennels, and probably give away more pups than I will ever sell. I welcome ANYONE to come by ANYTIME and see my kennels. Some may call me a mill, I will refute that to the day I die. I also am NOT a backyard breeder. I am a breeder of rat terriers....PERIOD.

Some people think it cruel my dogs are in a kennel. My dogs get attention every day they get to travel and go to shows and sleep in hotel rooms (beds). They are outdoor dogs. I have seen many dogs in backyards that never hear their human's voice except to holler at them to be quiet. They throw food and a pan of water every few days to them. If I were them, I'd want to be in MY kennel.

Someday I hope to aid in Rat Terrier Rescue. I love the breed, not the money. I welcome regulations that WILL make a difference, not just money in pockets. I think these politicians need to visit legitimate breeders and mills get a taste of what they are fighting for or against. Let us that know what we are doing, and doing well, do it, and shut down those that aren't PERIOD! Those people will never learn, they want the bucks.

People think that by purchasing a dog from a pet store or a puppy mill, they are "rescuing" the dog from horrible conditions when what they are really doing is supporting the millers. I agree it is hard to walk away from a poor little sad puppy sitting in a small stinky cage, but if we are to make a difference, that is what we must do. Just walk away!

To those of you wanting a puppy, if you insist on a purebred, GO VISIT the establishment. If they won't let you, just say thanks but no thanks. Go to the OFA website and see if their dogs are tested ask for a contract or a health guarantee. If they just sell to you without asking you any questions, RUN. If they offer no contract or guarantee RUN. If you are paying dearly for a pet, you deserve to know you are receiving the best they can offer. There are great breeders of EVERY breed out there. You can pay now or later when the vet bills start adding up from a sick or genetically bad dog. My sister purchased a puppy from a farm backyard breeder. They visited and said parents were "cute" and pups looked okay. I asked if they were tested for hips (big issue in the breed) they said no but they looked good. Well 8 months and $5000.00 later, double hip replacement surgery! Try taking a dog that has been in a family for 6 months away from 3 kids. That is what the bad breeders hope

Kate, Checotah (10/23/2007 10:37:42 PM)

Continued That is what the bad breeders hope will happen, that you can't give up the dog and will just keep it and pay the bills. Most require return of dog before replacement. Just DO YOUR HOMEWORK, find out WHAT issues are prevalent in your breed and ASK ASK ASK.

Legislation can't control your part, that's up to you. Let's just hope they get it right this time. But we can help and do our part by not supporting them. Just walk away!

Susan, (10/23/2007 11:15:43 PM)

I am calm, Lulu. I am just not fooled by this clear agenda, as so many seem to be. You seem to want to make this personal, why? I am happy that you have adopted your pets from shelters, that is all very well but the simple fact (hard truth time, the more gentle among you best close your eyes) is that what shelters are is a recycling center for pets... and they exist on adoption funds for the most part. Which means, the bottom line is they exist by selling used pets. Oh, don't get me wrong; they are a vital service and they do a hard job, but I myself get really sick of the holier-than-thou shelter mentality that wants to blame all the ills of the dog world on nasty ol' breeders. The hard truth of the matter is that unlike the majority of dog breeders who do it as a sideline or a hobby, shelters make their livings, keep their lights on, buy the kibble and pay the staff, entirely off of proceeds from animal SALES. (Okay, you can call it 'adoptions' if it makes you feel better, but the bottom line is, they don't give them out for free, do they?) And the OWNERS of these dogs, the ones who actually surrendered them to the shelter... why are they never mentioned? It's never their fault, only the breeders. Sorry, but it gets really old.

Many shelters in larger cities are actively shipping in pups from other shelters in more rural regions, because they can't keep enough cute small, *adoptable* dogs in place to keep the lights on. There have been several expose articles shining a light on the import of cute small breed pups from third world countries to shelters in NY and other major metropolises. Many of these pups come with multiple health problems, but the shelters are bringing them in by the shipload to have them available for adoption. Why is that? Because the LOCAL supply is drying up. More people *are* neutering pets. More breeders now do home checks; a lot fewer pups end up in unsuitable homes. Why do you think this is? It certainly isn't because the puppy mills are working on it. No, it is because many people, including *thousands* of loving breeders, have been educating the public, and it is finally catching hold. The situation has existed for all of humanity's time on this planet, but we are invited to act like it's some new thing that happened last week and we can cure it by waving a magic bill at it. Well, we can't. Education is not a magic bullet, and it takes time, but we *have* been winning this war for some time. Shelter numbers nationwide have been DROPPING for over twenty years; and yet the AR people out there keep screaming about how the sky is falling and we must do something NOW. Why the discrepancy? When you understand that, you might understand why some of us are suspicious of this group of articles. Because these people do not just represent a threat to small time hobby breeders, whether you realize it or not they represent a threat to anyone who wants to own a pet, period. Even you, Lulu. Or did you never bother to think through the concept of 'until there are none' and what that might *really* mean...?

Susan, (10/23/2007 11:55:42 PM)

A brief comment to Kate: two points here. First of all, while this is a newspaper site please remember it is an internet site and the information you share here is available to anyone with access to the Internet. Not all people would use that information for good. There are AR whackos who would be happy to poison every dog you own with antifreeze to 'free' them from the 'enslavement' they suffer as your pets. Some of these sickos are so full of their twisted agenda that they truly cannot be reasoned with. They actually believe they are doing the dogs a favor.

And, on a similar note, your insistence that people "run" from a breeder who refuses to let them come to their place... I disagree with you here, and I will tell you why: The same reasons I stated above. For all the fear mongering on this series of articles about what buyers should expect from breeders, no one has bothered to touch on what *breeders* can expect from buyers. So here you are, someone who is clearly dedicated to doing things right. You keep your place scrupulously clean, you refuse to go to dog events if you have puppies on the ground for fear of bringing in something. So, what now? You are going to throw open your doors to any Tom, Dick or Harry that wants to 'check out' your place? Where were they before they came to your place? How many *other* kennels did they visit that day, and were those premises as clean as yours? And even if they were would you want that risk? What are they bringing in on their shoes, clothes, hands, where other people's puppies leaped on them and licked?

How about the fact that many breeders live in rural areas due to city restrictions on ownership? Having more than three will put you out of the city of Tulsa... so you live in a rural area, maybe surrounded by lovely shady trees to keep your dogs and your home cool. Maybe you even have small children. And a prospective buyer wants the address to your place. How many days would you have to be dead before your neighbors would even notice...? Oh, wait. I am guessing you have not heard about people who use puppy sales as an excuse to case a place for theft. People have been knocked on the head and robbed; if you are lucky they only take your valuables. Some have woken up to find entire litters gone, or returned after shopping to see their homes broken into and the puppies and parents lost....

Also, do you want to be responsible for the child who falls off the back of your tractor because their mom looking at the pups and not paying attention? Do you have the kind of insurance to cover that? This is your HOME, Kate, and however strongly you might feel about wanting to protect your reputation against those who will call you a 'puppy mill' and a problem breeder for refusing them access, the simple fact is that it is your HOME not a storefront. Reasonable people will understand that, and the rest... well, do you need the money that bad? I am betting no.

You do not OWE them access to your home to prove your fitness to be their puppy's parent. You are not responsible for their paranoia; you can blame stupid articles like this series from the World for convincing the public that breeders are bad people and not to be trusted. But giving them access to your home, and your dogs, might be a show of good faith but also a way to put your family and your dogs in danger. There are many other ways to check someone out; talk to other puppy buyers, their vet, etc. But refusing to let people come to your place is not necessarily the sign of a 'bad' breeder, but one who is protective of their dogs and their family.

Clifford, (10/24/2007 12:13:38 AM)

My God Susan you have no life to write that novel. I and most others will not read all of that but what I gather is you run a mill and are trying to justify what you are doing. Who else is going to write that much. I hope they shut you and all other puppy mills down.

Susan, (10/24/2007 1:03:44 AM)

Thank you for your stunning display of intellect, Clifford. I realize that as you admit here, more than a sound byte seems beyond your capabilities, so I'll keep this brief and try to stick to two syllables or less. What you 'gather' is, apparently, mostly navel lint. I have no need to 'justify' anything. If you *had* bothered to read you would have noticed that I ran an animal RESCUE service for many years and that I am still active in that capacity. As such, I have had first hand experience with much of what these authors are talking about. This 'series' is DRIVEL intended to frighten the more gullible among us into taking action against this terrible problem. I see agenda written all over it, but then I don't get all my worldy knowledge from the World. You are invited to believe anything you like about me, it's a free country. But as for 'who else is going to write that much,' here is a simple (and short) answer: anyone who knows a reputable breeder in Oklahoma and is insulted on their behalf. Anyone who is incensed to be accused of living in a 'puppy mill state' after working hard and seeing great strides against that very problem here and elsewhere. Anyone who has any real knowledge of the industry and its problems, and not a passing acquaintance from reading a newspaper.

How many animals have you personally rescued, Clifford? I am guessing not many or you too would have felt the pressure from the AR contingent breathing down your neck. And you might have been angry enough to reply to this hatchet job with some heat. In point of fact, several people have had a lot to say on this subject.

But you go right on with the personal attacks and the innuendos intended to imply I am a puppy mill. That way you don't have to learn anything new, you can just parrot the same slogans. Whatever works for you.

Clifford, (10/24/2007 7:54:38 AM)

Um ok. LOL Another novel. This is a forum not a place to write books.

Jeff, (10/24/2007 9:07:15 AM)

Schizo Susan needs counseling.

Mike, Tulsa (10/24/2007 9:40:00 AM)

Wow, well many people clearly do not know about the PAWS bill, that recently came and went. That is what Susan is referring to. Jeff and Clifford you can learn more by googling the term "PAWS Bill". You'll get an eyefull. It was a law that was "supposed" to reel in puppymills, but it wasn't about that at all. It was a law that would have abolished "hobby breeders" all together, and people who do animal rescue.

It was presented as a "puppymill" law. However, only commercial breeders would have been able to meet the requirements, so strangely enough it was anything but a puppymill law. It was fought tooth and nail, by national rescue groups, hobby breeders and numerous dog clubs. It was actually about money, and more specifically microchips. Also the AKC stood to make millions on the bill, therefore supported it despite the huge protest of the clubs own members.

Read up on the Bill, if you want to see what government involvement would be like. By the way, here's something you may not know. The federal government set up many disabled Vietnam veterans as dog breeders during the 1970's, as a way to avoid paying them disability. Strangely enough, those men went from one politically incorrect job to another.

That group of people are aging out and retiring, by the time they get around to enforcing laws about it, the issue may not even be around. It will effect everyone else though, and it can't be taken back once enforced. Read up on it then decide if that's a good idea or not.