Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

House panel kills measure targeting 'puppy mills'

By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 4, 2009 at 7:09 p.m.
Updated February 4, 2009 at 11:55 p.m.

Text size  

More Colorado Government

More stories »

Colorado dog breeders panned a "puppy mill" bill Wednesday, saying more inspections and not more rules are the answer.

But an animal activist pointed out that some of the same breeders who testified against the measure were found to have operated filthy facilities and had reportedly sold sick dogs.

As amended, House Bill 1072, by Rep. Beth McCann, D-Denver, limited the number of dogs in a facility to 50 and also required breeding dogs to be seen annually by a veterinarian.

Lawmakers on the House Agriculture Committee killed the bill on a 7-5 vote, saying they were concerned it wouldn't stop puppy- mill operators and instead would hurt reputable breeders. Democrats Jeanne Labuda, of Denver, and Wes McKinley, of Walsh, joined with Republicans in voting no.

More than 30 witnesses spoke during a five-hour hearing, passionately defending or opposing the bill.

"You can have two dogs and have a puppy mill," breeder Scott Dietz, of Fleming, said. "It's all in how you raise them, how you love them."

Another breeder, Debbie Willard, of Elizabeth, said she knows her vet better than her own personal physician.

Breeders said that a 1994 state law that regulates pet animal facilities to ensure proper treatment is a model used nationally.

But others said the law is inadequate.

Mike Stabler, director of Rocky Mountain Animal Defense, read a state inspection report on a facility owned by one of the breeders who opposed the bill.

The inspector found cleansing, drainage and waste disposal violations. A person who bought a dog from that breeder complained it was infested with fleas, lice, intestinal parasites and worms.

"They said we don't need more regulations," Stabler said. "I disagree."

Colorado has 231 licensed breeders who are inspected annually by one of three state inspectors. Those same inspectors are responsible for investigating about 1,600 other facilities, including animal control and rescue shelters.

Both bill supporters and opponents agreed that more inspectors are needed.

Comments

  • February 4, 2009

    8:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    goodheart writes:

    Shelters put dogs to sleep daily. Why do there need to be any breeders?

  • February 4, 2009

    8:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    SickAndTiredInLittleton writes:

    goodheart,

    A very valid point, but understand that there are some very good breeders out there, doing a wonderful job of maintaining the best characteristics of the various dog breeds.

    The bigger issue here is: Who are these people working for? I can't imagine that the general public thinks that having 50 dogs capable of reproducing on a single property is a good idea. As a matter of fact, I'd believe that the number of folks that think it's okay numbers well below a quarter of the population. We have elections; why are these idiots in office, if they don't understand their constituents? Because their party machines continue to elect "electable" candidates, instead of people with integrity, who understand their jobs. Please, please, please vote every one of these people out next election, Democrat and Republican both. Beth McCann is a hero for acting to support her constituency's best wishes; it's a shame she works with soulless scum.

  • February 4, 2009

    9:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dawnmarie01 writes:

    This is so incredibly disappointing!! Shame on the 7 of you who voted against it!! Listen to ALL of your constituents and not just the few 'good' breeders who showed up! I guarantee they are the exception to the rule.

  • February 4, 2009

    11:27 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    fifty writes:

    This is horrible. How much do these politicians receive in campaign contributions from these puppy mill groups? Obviously, there needs to be one more inspector. Each inspector is supposed to inspect 600 facilities per year?

    If it all depends on "how you love them", then why would anyone want to own 50 dogs? How do you meet the physical and emotional needs of 50 dogs? How does someone walk 50 dogs each day?

    I just got a puppy mill dog that was used as a breeder and the problems were enormous. She had never been around people. She lived in a cage filled with fecal material. The 'breeders' didn't feed the dogs for six days, so they were eating the dead dogs. There was a bite out of her rear-end. She was pooping blood and mucous. She had never been on any surface other than dirt. She had never seen the inside of a home. She wasn't potty trained. She shook and shivered for days on end as when she was rescued, she was overwhelmed with fear as she had no experience of the world. She had never run or left the ground. She didn't know how to climb stairs. We couldn't even touch her and we were bitten. She, of course, couldn't walk on a leash.

    So, if the legislature is incapable of coming up with a satisfactory humane law, then maybe we need a ballot initiative, new legislators and a campaign to inform the public not to buy that doggy in the window.

    PS - I'm a suburban mother, not an animal rights activist who just happened to adopt a dog that came from a puppy mill and through my dog became aware of the horrible lives these dogs live.

  • February 4, 2009

    11:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    seeker writes:

    This is truly a disappointment. I agree! Shame on you who voted against this....you should all lose your jobs! One act of common decency for animals....50 dogs reproducing on a single property is obscene....this should have been dealt with correctly. Very bad.

  • February 5, 2009

    9:04 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderuel writes:

    Goodheart, all due respect, but where do you think shelter dogs come from? Generally, *Irresponsible* breeders. And you all want there to be no thoughtful, caring breeders who produce puppies whose parents have been health tested, who work to better the breed they love, who work to socialize these puppies so they don't have emotional problems when they go to new homes? Breeders who require first right of refusal through contracts so that the puppies they bring into the world *always* have a home and never burden shelters or rescue?

    Sorry, but in a perfect world, there would be NO NEED for shelter dogs and instead people would get superior pups with the best health and temperaments possible. Eliminating breeding is not the answer. As it is now, many big shelters in busy areas import animals in from around the country and even from outside it. There aren't enough to go around, especially when it comes to small dogs.

    I know this bill was to regulate commercial breeders, but there are four big issues there. First, there are already laws on the books to monitor current commercial kennels. They aren't enforced because the state doesn't have the budget for more inspections. Passing this law wouldn't have made inspectors suddenly appear! It would have been yet another un-enforcable law that makes everyone feel good, but doesn't do a darn thing except punish people who aren't the problem in the first place. Secondly, a toe hold in number will slowly work it way down. First it's 50 intact dogs, then 25, then 12, then 6, then 3 and then none. HSUS and PeTA have a goal of a zero birth rate. They do not want anyone to have a companion animal, period. Thirdly, the only thing that will put crappy breeders out of business is EDUCATION of the general public. If there are no buyers for puppies with poor health and temperament, who are not adequately socialized or cared for, the businesses would dry up. People who care and love for animals in this country realize that Animal Rights (way different than Animal Welfare) don't want anyone to have companion animals. The last issue is who do you think dumps animals at shelters and in Rescue? It's not generally their breeders! It's people who probably shouldn't have had an animal to begin with. Think about that.

    I would also like to say that I have met commercial breeders who do really love their animals and care for them just as much as I do mine. The answer is not an arbitrary number.

  • February 5, 2009

    10 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    NotUrFriend writes:

    This is terrible news and a step backward from advancing the ethical, humane and dignified treatment of perhaps the noblest creature in man's service. I think this is just deplorable news and am certainly dishearted that Coloradan lawmakers bucked a genuinely good law.

    I know many genuine breeders with integrity and prefessionalism who carry out their calling with pride everyday. None of these breeder's own more than four breeding pairs, typically one stud dog and mostly females. They themselves told me that the law frankly would have little or no impact on localized breeders who carry out their career of choice (or passion*) with integrity and not greed. Anytime you place greed above life the ends justify the means.

    I am going to find the names of these representatives and start an email campaign to get rid of these scums.

    SHAME ON YOU! You let your wallets decide the fate of your souls.

    I.

  • February 5, 2009

    10:11 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    NotUrFriend writes:

    Anduruel,

    Your right about the lack of proper levels of human personal to carry out the inspection process. Frankly, the first means of defense is an open and honest public who could mark calls to inspectors about degrading and inhumane facilities. This is how most laws are enforced....By a good citizenship taking a leading role in defending the general public.

    Me? I'd report, do report, and shall report any cruel treatment of animals that I see. I've honestly had to on several occurances step in and stop the cruelity. Most the people who beat animals are mere cowards who don't have the gull to put themselves in harms way when confront by someone.

    If I ever got angry enough to hit a dog, a woman, or a child I'd take a trip down to my local bar where a fights already waiting to be picked. At least than I could go to sleep with some dignity and a black eye.

    I.

  • February 5, 2009

    10:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    TeardropCowboy writes:

    If they are going to vote down the bill then at least double the budget for the office that runs the inspections. More regulation isn't needed IF there is adequate and often inspections of the facilities and records.

  • February 5, 2009

    11:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    NotUrFriend writes:

    TearDropCowBoy,

    Exactly. Or put funds into advertising community help on this particularily evasive and un-ethical issue. Most normal folks, animal welfare fighter's or suburban fathers and teens, are not the type that sponsor nor endorse cruelty of any sort.

    More community awareness and participation would greatly enhance the effectiveness of the current laws in place.

    It makes sense to me. When we gave birth to "community watch'' programs during Reagon's "A cop on every street" program it greatly reduced crime in general. We need a program that involves community watch and animal welfare.

    I.

  • February 5, 2009

    11:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SickAndTiredInLittleton writes:

    Puppies 'n Stuff in Northglenn is closed. Pet Spot in Longmont is closed. Jessie's in Castle Rock is closed. Protesters are in the process of closing North Washington Street Kennels. This appears to be the only path to ending mill operations in Colorado ( by getting rid of their buyers ). Folks continue to focus on educating the public about what happens at mills, and why they should go and see the facilities themselves before buying a puppy from them. There is real action happening out here, away from the statehouse.

    Why is the general public having to do the job of the legislature here? Why are we paying these people?

  • February 5, 2009

    11:53 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Elwood writes:

    No money for increased number of inspectors? Raise the fees for breeders in the state to support 3-6 new inspectors (from the sound of these letters there should be many people willing to work for peanuts). I mean look how easy it was to increase the "fees" on automobiles.

  • February 5, 2009

    noon

    Suggest removal

    becca00 writes:

    How about just funding the inspectors to enable them to do their jobs properly in the first place?

    Wouldn't that make more sense than more rules?

    Wait ... more rules are free. More inspectors cost money. So don't bother to actually fix the problem, just make more rules and hopefully the problem will solve itself by putting breeders out business. [/sarcasm]

  • February 5, 2009

    2:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    cololib writes:

    Hooray for the defeat of this bill! We don't need more government intrusion in our lives. . Animals aren't left in shelters by breeders,they are left by people who got a freebie from the next door neighbor who thought letting their dog or cat have a litter would be "educational" for the children. Then THAT freebie is allowed to have a litter or two and so on and so on. Pretty soon those mutts end up at the shelter when they lose their cuteness factor and their uneducated owners lose interest. This law would do nothing to curb those "educational experiences".

    Many dogs (and other animals) killed by the shelters because they don't want to spend the time and money to care for them

    The municipal shelter in Porter County Indiana used to kill roughly 115 dogs and cats per month, young and old, healthy and sick, friendly and aggressive. There were even allegations of cruelty. After firing the long term director and staff, they now kill about 7 hopelessly ill animals or aggressive dogs a month. They did it overnight.

    In Portsmouth Virginia, a new director took over the humane society which contracts for animal control services and committed herself to implementing the No Kill paradigm. Killing is down 63% since she took over operations. Contradicting those who say that No Kill leads to overcrowding and animals dying in kennel, the number of animals found dead is down 75% due to better cleaning practices, staff that is better able to assess medical needs, and increased veterinary care. Defying those who say there are too many animals for too few homes, adoptions are up, while rescue transfers have more than doubled. They did it overnight.

    I urge everyone to read "Redemption: the myth of pet overpopulation" by Nathan Winograd.

  • February 5, 2009

    3:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    NotUrFriend writes:

    ColoLib,

    I agree that proper education along with needed funds and open community involvement are a positive effect in helping to implement any no kill program, but this bill was to directly challenge over crowding dogs, which is an inhumane and unethical practice with puppy mills. I frankly do not know (nor care to) any breeder directly that has more than maybe a top level of ten or so breeding pairs, of which they averagely litter about 7 to 9 pups.

    When you have 50 plus breeding pairs in a place smaller than a small house there are un ethical issues relating to animal welfare. I've personally seen the end result of these breeding farms where the female k9's are locked up in a cage with no space to even turn fully around to lick themselves. You sponsor this method of breeding? Or your merely tolerant of it because they are mere 'property" that is not your own?

    Perhaps you should take your eyes off Redemption (which is a wonderful book) and maybe go take a tour at a local puppy mill before you say "Hooray!!" too loudly. Maybe the painful shrieks and agonizing barks might sink in through that ear-wax before you cast your rightious opinion of such practices.

    Here's hoping.

    I.

  • February 5, 2009

    3:22 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    NotUrFriend writes:

    Cololib,

    I apologise if it seems I'm attacking you regarding your earlier posting, I am not. I think you have some very valid and realistic recommendations regarding the no kill shelters and I think that, too, must be addressed at some point. This bill was targeting over grouping large numbers of dogs in deplorable conditions.

    Well I disagree with you greatly that localized, loving and devout breeders would be effected via this bill, I gave it good credit for attempting to improve the conditions that these poor animals exist in. How is that wrong? I remember a time when human beings were sold for dollars a peice to other human beings and robbed of all liberty and freedoms. I remember a time when woman were mere property (like in Islamic nations today) here in this country and couldn't even vote.

    God willing, the time of "its just a dog!" will come and pass. God Willing we'll become better down this road than we are now. God willing history will tells us of our foolish bigotry.

    I.

  • February 5, 2009

    10:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    soopercooper writes:

    all of the meetings at the legislative level are open to the public anyone of you could have come to voice your opinion there instead of hiding behind your pc

  • February 7, 2009

    10:58 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderuel writes:

    NotUrFriend,

    I respectfully disagree with you about bills such as this *not* affecting responsible breeders. You don't understand the true Animal Rights agenda. Now, the sponsor of this bill here in CO may not have meant to eventually go after responsible breeders, but I can guarantee you HSUS and PeTA do. All they need is their foot in the legislative door, so to speak, and off they go after everyone else. It's a very slippery slope. This is their MO...they start with a high number directed toward commercial breeders and ignorant people (including "responsible" breeders) who think "oh, they are just going after xxx type of breeder....that's not *me*". Ya wanna bet? It's not you YET. In IL, there is a bill limiting ALL breeders to 3 intact females that also goes so far as to violate their rights in regards to unreasonable search and seizure.

    HSUS and PeTA do not operate any shelters....the goal with these organizations is to collect copious amounts of money from people who care about and love their pets and to use that money against 99% of their donors to eliminate companion animals and meat eating (inc. hunting, farming, etc). Animal welfare is completely different than Animal Rights. ARists believe that a rat should have the same rights as a human child. Now, I love my dogs and they will be the only "children" I ever have, but they are not little humans in fur suits. To think of them that way is, to me, to insult them as a species. It doesn't mean that a human should treat them however they please, but there has to be a line....because much of what is "cruel" to an average pet owner is *probably* not cruel from a dog's perspective. I know dogs who are miserable in a house and thrilled to be in an indoor/outdoor kennel. (Not mine, lol, but I think you get the point).

    continued....

  • February 7, 2009

    10:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderuel writes:

    continuing...

    Also, you've already changed your numbers (as to what number of dogs is "okay" to have) from 1 stud dog and 4 females to no more than 10 breeding pairs (20 dogs). What works for one person doesn't for another....and FYI very few responsible breeders have "breeding pairs". Most have all or mostly females with perhaps one or a few males. Often the females are bred to males that don't live with the breeder and it's not terribly often that one female is bred to the same male for every litter.

    It comes down to two very salient points...first, if we don't currently have enough inspectors under the current PACFA regulations, how in the world would this new bill (TG it was killed) be enforced? Secondly, the answer is EDUCATION of the general public....that animals are a commitment. If you don't want one, don't get one! And certainly don't dump your animal at the shelter. I did all breed and mixed breed Rescue for 14 years. The biggest problem out there aren't breeders....it's the people who get dogs without thinking and then dump them and the people who have just one litter and don't know what they heck they are doing when it comes to placing the puppies. Most people also need to be educated about what to look for in a breeder....unfortunately, there are not enough of those kinds of breeders to satisfy demand. There is a place, like it or not, for good commercial breeders...not every commercial breeding facility is a filthy, nasty place. Heck, there are people out there who can't properly care for ONE dog. What about those dogs?

    Use the current laws, which are GOOD laws, and enforce the darn things. It is impossible to legislate ethics and I applaud this current House Ag committee for making a very bold ruling. Nothing exists in a vacuum and this law would have absolutely trickled down.