Puppy Mills: A Factory of Animal Cruelty
17 Apr 2009
A lifeless English bulldog puppy with a bullet hole in the head was set on fire and dumped into the trash can. Several oozing sores covered a mangy Doberman pinscher. While dozens of terriers were crammed into wire cages only 18 inches tall, 3 feet deep and 2 feet wide.
This scene in the dark corners of a large-scale dog-breeding operation in Indiana serves as a haven for irresponsible breeders. Owing the fact that some of the country’s weakest animal-cruelty laws, enables Indiana as one of leaders in churning out puppies. The industry is poorly regulated that authorities have yet to put a stop on animal abuse and neglect.
Despite the legitimacy of many breeders, The Indianapolis Star reveals an industry where a majority deals with a troubling bottom line: to produce puppies as fast and cheaply as possible for merchandise, often to unsuspecting buyers without any regards to the dog’s health and well-being. The conclusion was derived from the series of interviews of veterinarians, animal-rights advocates, prosecutors and others.
Insiders of the breeding facility divulged that the state is home to 3,000 of these so-called puppy mills. An estimated $1.3 billion profit comes from the production of tens of thousands of puppies annually along with an unknown numbers with genetic defects resulting from over breeding.
As an answer, state lawmakers are trying to seize control on the industry by submitting breeders to state inspections, passing stricter animal-abuse laws and moderating the number of dogs to be bred. A bill and similar legislations is being considered by The Humane Society of the United States in 32 other states.
“Many of these dogs live their whole lives in a cage. They’re never held, never touched, never allowed to walk on grass and never taken to a vet,” said Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, author of House Bill 1468, which would crack down on commercial breeders.
Limitations
Most breeders operate discreetly on farms across Indiana. They are not required to register with the state thus making it difficult to identify. Some who were identified are reluctant to talk.
A commercial dog breeder in Shipshewana, was one of the few willing to speak. He said most breeders have been victimized by a handful of breeders. He adds that all these horror stories are attempts to give them a bad rap. Some of the breeders have nothing to and no animal abuse takes place in some of the operations.
Loophole in the law
It is stated in the Indiana’s animal-cruelty law that owners only have to provide food and water to their pets, a major hole in the law. Putnam County Prosecutor Tim Bookwalter questions it adding that “a person can shoot their own dog and kill it, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”
Prosecutor Bookwalter obtained a search warrant for a breeding operation on a Putnamville farm after securing photos of abused dogs there.
Upon reaching the site, the police officers found 70 dogs in barns, living in squalor.
They found a bulldog puppy that had been shot because the breeder did not like its coloring, a Chihuahua with no fur left on its face and a Boston terrier that was too weak to walk.
The team left empty handed since the puppy mill owner was able to provide food and water to the poor dogs.
Terre Haute veterinarian Michael Staub found many dogs in wretched condition in October on a Sullivan County farm. Following the search warrant, 300 dogs had turned up at local vets.
Staub treated the Doberman pinscher suffering from mange, saw terriers living in cramped cages and found an old bus filled with dogs. A dead Pomeranian had been discarded on top of a trash bin.
Yet again, the police could not press charges due to the limitation of the law instead, they could only talk the owner into releasing 67 of the sickest dogs. If only the bill could be pass to better protect dogs living in puppy mills.
photo credits to joeshacks
Tough to prosecute
In February, the only know case involving a commercial dog breeder is Tammy Gilchrist having charged with five felony counts of tax evasion owing the state $ 193,000 in back taxes.
Charges were pressed when the Indiana attorney general’s office receiving complaints from customers who purchased dogs from her with genetic and other health problems.
Upon investigation, the state learned she had failed to secure a business license to operate in Indiana. The police then obtained a court order preventing her from selling dogs leading to a raid by the Indiana State Police. 74 of her 150 dogs were seized from their pitch-black tool sheds, including a beagle with a failed C-section.
One of Gilchrist’s customers was Rep. Trent Van Haaften, D-Mount Vernon. His wife bought a schnoodle — a schnauzer-poodle mix — from the breeder last year. The family never saw her kennel only to receive their pet when Gilchrist had brought the dog to their home. The dog didn’t live long dying from an infection with a parvovirus which causes diarrhea and vomiting.
What the breeders have to say
Commercial breeders said they don’t oppose the plans to strengthen the state’s animal-abuse laws or state inspections, which will root out the bad kennels.
These two provisions are being objected by breeders namely against protections for consumers and a cap on how many dogs they can breed.
Under the proposed legislation, buyers would be allowed to return puppies within 15 days upon any major health problems discovered, also within a year if a genetic defect is found.
The bill also would limit the number of breeding females, or those that are not spayed at 30.
Frey said that the “30-dog cap is unreasonable and would put breeders out of business,” who has 60 adult dogs in two buildings at his operation. “He added that the amount of money spent on vet bills, dog food and maintenance of the animals wouldn’t be worth investing.
Supporters of the bill agreed that the changes were necessary to get the legislation through the Republican-controlled Senate. It could keep the stronger animal-abuse provisions intact.
If the Senate passes the bill, it would move to a conference committee where the two chambers would have until the April 29 legislative session deadline to iron out their differences.