Toronto Bans Sale of Puppy Mill (kittens and puppies) Pets

From my experience - small local home breeders do not usually sell through pet stores - they sell by word of mouth and their own advertising. I'd think most people who would want to get a dog from a breeder would prefer to visit the breeder to see personally how the dogs are cared for - this ensures you are getting a quality well cared for pet.

At least shelters and breeders, good ones, are around in case of emergency. Who's going to save the occupants of a pet store in a mall in the middle of the night? A security guard?

Still, I have to wonder what even quality breeders do with their culls. Not the ones with obvious defects, but just the ones that are not up to the breed standard. Most of them would make great pets, but an AKC breeder is not going to send them out into the world with pedigree and AKC registeration.

Actually good breeders do just that - they sell these as pets with the pedigree and registration. It doesn't matter as these pets are not going to be "shown."

Good breeders love their breed and the dogs they raise. Many will question the living arrangements of the future pet - will some one be home? What sort of food will feed him/her? Are you familar with the breed?

I know one breeder we contacted (that is really into showing their dogs) and they give you a big list of questions before they will allow you to obtain one even at their price. Although a good breeder will want to ensure you get the dog fixed - as only experienced breeders will know how to breed correctly to keep the pedigree up to snuff.

My boss at one breeder would only allow you to get one of their pups if you promise to only feed the dog organic dog food.

If it is a family business who cares about the well being of the animals they sell then none. These types of business sell on a reputation and word of mouth from satified pet owners.

It's hard to reconcile this comment with what you wrote less than 20 minutes earlier. I could be wrong but it seems that you recounted your own experience with a "reputable breeder," that was less that satisfactory. Presumably the favorable reputation which you relied upon was generated by satisfied pet owners and yet you have concluded that the breeder was one who only cared for money and not the animals themselves.

If word of mouth from satisfied customers cannot assure that a breeder meets your requirements, what can? Does the law you hope to have passed in your community require breeders to be approved by you?

My point is that you easily dismiss Bill's concern that laws like these could put legitimate small breeders out of business, by contending that if they are benign they will surrvive, but offer only word of mouth generated reputation as the means to demonstrate they are sufficiently benign...and provide us with an example of how such a reputation can be unreliable.

Not exactly the makings of a fair and effective law.

Comparing puppy mills to small family run breeding operations is like comparing apples to oranges. So it seems to me you are saying for the greater good of a few we must tolerate the bad behavior of many.

I don't think he's saying that at all. He's saying that we shouldn't ignore or imperil the rights of anyone (be they few or many) in order to put a stop to the behavior of an entirely separate group which we cannot tolerate.

What you seem to be saying is we need not worry about the rights of innocent others if we can put a stop to the behavior of bad others that we find intolerable.

No one in this thread is defending the illegal and immoral behavior of large scale breeders who deserve the epithet Puppy Mill.

I (and perhaps Bill...I'll leave it him to explain his position if he chooses) am saying that a law that forces a choice between the rights of legitimate breeders and cessation of the illegal activity of illegitmate ones is a bad law and is unncessary.

We can raise the legal standards but with the large amounts of budget cuts at local, state, and federal levels the new standards would never be enforced.


Ahhh, there's the rub isn't it? There is not enough money to enforce standards that would put a stop to the bad behavior without imperiling or damaging the rights of those who do not engage in it.

With or without budget cuts, there will never be enough money to do everything. Communities need to make choices and prioritize concerns. If effective enforcement can truly only be achieved with additional resources (more $) then the community should either generate additional revenues or reallocate what it already has.

Coming up with what seems like a clever, cost free "solution" (which by the way also helps address a problem that is not contemplated by the law but is nevertheless important to those who support it) is not an appropriate answer if the rights of law abiding members of the community are compromised.

If putting an end to the illegal behavior of breeders and pet stores is sufficently important to the community it should either cough up the additional costs through increased taxs or fees or redirect the money being spent to correct a problem of lesser concern or a provide a service of lesser importance.

Have you ever been around a puppy mill? I believe if you ever saw even one you would understand the passion people feel about ending their avenue to sell the animals the breed.

Clearly you are assuming Bill has either never seen a Puppy Mill or is unaware of what specifically takes place at such operations. The assumption is probably erroneous but certaily unfair and besides the point.

What underlies this first assumption is a second assumption that if Bill shared or even understood your passion he would agree with your position and not concern himself with the possibility that the rights of legal breeders could be denied.

Finding fault with or objecting to this law is not evidence that someone is any less concerned about animals or any less repulsed by cruelty than then those who support it.



If no one bought drugs there would be no illegal drug market. If no one will buy puppies from puppy mills there will no longer be puppy mills and these people can go back to selling their souls in some other despicable way.

If no one bought drugs there would be no drug market, legal or illegal, and if no one bought dogs there would be no Puppy Mills and no dog pounds. You might as well say that if no one died there would be no murders.

While we can probably agree that all operations that deserve to be called Puppy Mills are illegitimate, not all breeders are Puppy Mills.

By allowing pet stores to only sell dogs obtained from shelters, the Toronto law has eliminated these retail operations as a market for all breeders, even the ones who fully comply with all regulations.

If there isn't enough money available to enforce animal cruelty laws at breeding operations, where will the money come from to enforce the Toronto law at pet stores?

The champion of the Toronto law acknowledges that it will not eliminate Puppy Mills and so if the mills can remain in operation it certainly can be expected that they will continue to sell puppies through pet stores, if the store owner is willing to break the law as some surely will. Therefore enofrcement efforts will be necessary.

What happens with the still operating Puppy Mills? Will even less money be spent on enforcing animal cruelty laws at their operations, thereby increasing the likelihood of animal suffering? Will the Mills go underground and be less succespable to inspections by the authorities.

Even if we accept that it may be necessary to deny the rights of the innocent in order to solve a serious problem, this law will not solve the problem. Undoubtedly it will have some some beneficial effect, but it will not solve the problem.

By allowing pet stores to only sell dogs obtained from shelters, the Toronto law has eliminated these retail operations as a market for all breeders, even the ones who fully comply with all regulations.