Have you always wanted to STOP puppy mills in Oklahoma, but never knew what YOU could do? Now is your chance!

Did you know over 600 Class A and Class B dog dealers exist in Oklahoma, making us the second largest puppy producer in the country behind Missouri? Please Please Please come out and voice your opinion on November 6th at the Capitol at 10:00 AM in Room 412C. The meeting will be filled with Class A and B dog dealers,we must have a presence or this bill will not be introduced! Do not expect changes to occur in Oklahoma unless you are actively there to create change.

Read below for details on the legislation. This is the beginning of our opportunity to create change.

HIGH VOLUME BREEDER FACTS

·USDA regulations cover only those breeders and dealers who supply dogs on a wholesale basis for resale to a third party AND who own three or more breeding females.

·Entities that sell, adopt, or otherwise place companion animals directly to the public in OK are therefore not covered by any regulations, even those with hundreds of breeding dogs or cats.

·Most states with a high number of breeding establishments have state regulations covering the facilities not covered by USDA regulations.

·However, Oklahoma has no state regulations of facilities not required to have a USDA license. Many animals fall through the cracks.

·No mechanism exists for addressing facilities that are obligated to obtain a USDA license and choose not to do so. These clandestine breeding operations avoid animal welfare regulations, taxes and plague consumers.

·USDA regulations may cover less than one third of all high volume breeders in OK.

·Class A dealers, sometimes called ‘puppy mills,’ produce dogs to sell wholesale, usually to pet stores.

·Class B dealers, obtain ‘random source,’ dogs and are often associated with pet theft or theft by deception (fraudulent responses to ‘free to good home’ ads), mainly selling dogs to research labs.

Concerned citizens, and Oklahoma based animal welfare organizations, want regulations to compel all facilities including breeders, dog dealers, and private shelters selling or placing over 25 dogs or puppies per/yr to meet, at a minimum, USDA standards for housing, feeding, cleanliness and record keeping. Some breeders complain that the standards are too restrictive and could put them out of business.

Are These Standards Too Restrictive?


USDA standards call for each dog to have a cage size at least equal to its’ length from nose to base of tail, plus six inches, times the same length. This means an average beagle could spend its’ life in a 30” X 30” cage. Each breeding cat under 8.8 pounds is entitled to a minimum of 3 square feet of floor space (96 square inches), or 18” by 24”. Cats over 8.8 pounds are to have six inches more. There are recommendations for exercise, but exercise IS NOT MANDATORY.

USDA standards call for each animal to be fed daily and offered water at least twice daily.

USDA standards call for minimal record keeping.

Each week another ‘puppy mill,’ is seen in the paper. Many complaints come in regarding facilities claiming to be rescue organizations that operate as unlicensed Class B dealers. These tragedies appear in the news and in the courts. Common sense standards can stop animal suffering.



Voice your opinion on November 6 at the capitol at 10 am.

Thanks, Sweetdaisy. If I were in the area, I would attend.

I will be there with bells on!!! Are we allowed to bring a puppy mill rescued dog with us?

Beth

Since this is an event at the state capitol, it'd probably be best to leave the pet(s) at home.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Either they can exist here with reasonable regulation or they will be forced to go international or underground where they're beyond our regulatory reach. A reactionist/activist attack on the industry is not the best option if we want to actually have an effect on the industry. Hopefully, lawmakers can sit down and work out a regulatory scheme that everyone can live with.

You're not sure how you feel about what? Wanting minimal humane treatment for animals? Or going to the capital to discuss the issue? This isn't a protest with people marching around outside...this is a discussion regarding why current methods (or lack thereof) are not enough.

It is not a reactionist/activist attack...it's asking that Oklahoma fall in with USDA guidelines. Not a whole lot to ask considering most other states already do so.

Problem is, if people don't go and speak up asking for these VERY basic guidelines, the issue will be swept under the rug again. Your last sentence of "hopefully, lawmakers can sit down and work out a regulatory scheme that everyone can live with" will never happen if people don't speak out and request they make this change.

I'm actually a bit surprised by your response...unless you're trying to create a debate out of this.

I'd go (I'd love to yell at lawmakers), but I don't want to run the risk of being put on the Dept. of Homeland Security's PETA watchlist.

You're not sure how you feel about what? Wanting minimal humane treatment for animals? Or going to the capital to discuss the issue? This isn't a protest with people marching around outside...this is a discussion regarding why current methods (or lack thereof) are not enough.

It is not a reactionist/activist attack...it's asking that Oklahoma fall in with USDA guidelines. Not a whole lot to ask considering most other states already do so.

Problem is, if people don't go and speak up asking for these VERY basic guidelines, the issue will be swept under the rug again. Your last sentence of "hopefully, lawmakers can sit down and work out a regulatory scheme that everyone can live with" will never happen if people don't speak out and request they make this change.

I'm actually a bit surprised by your response...unless you're trying to create a debate out of this.

Well, the title of the thread is "stop" puppy mills. You want to actually turn an entire industry in Oklahoma illegal. This would particularly affect rural areas where these sorts of operations are more prevalent. There is a big difference between "stopping" these things and having them regulated to a degree where the industry isn't harmed that much.

If we make it impossible for these operations to work in Oklahoma, we'll only force them to relocate to somewhere where regulation is less of a concern.

By "stopping" these things, you have the real possibility of making the situation worse -- just worse somewhere else.

Fair points, Midtowner. I actually posted the "flyer" I recieved via email, but perhaps it's not the best posting. I believe in the message, but not the way it was presented. My apologies to everyone...I should have pared it down.

However, as far as I'm concerned, I want the high volume breeders to have to abide by the minimal humane rules as stated above. Whether that stops them is another story. But as I'm sure you could guess, I'm certainly not a fan of puppy mills, and any legislation that makes it a little more difficult for them to crank out a profit on the backs of innocents brings a bit of satisfaction.

Puppy mills contribute to the animal overpopulation crisis and it's time to discourage this behavior. Remember, it's not just mutts that end up in the animal shelter.

There are puppy mills in many states but some have more than others, as often as not, due to regulation or because some states have more rural areas, cheap land, etc. Bottom line, some places are more attractive to puppy millers than others. If Oklahoma has strong regulation, they might go elsewhere. Personally, I think that is good. This is not to keep Oklahoma "pure" at the expense of other places, but simply because the noose may be tightening on these places. A heightened sensitivity to how these things operate seems to be catching fire in our country. As people have less children/grandchildren, they are taking in companion animals in increasing numbers. You can scoff if you want, but a lot of people consider them family members. Case in point, a large number of people hit by Katrina wouldn't leave their pets in the face of probably death. They changed the policy to save pets because people were refusing to leave and they were getting pressure from across the country. As for going international, it is harder to truck in the volume of pups or other animals than simply moving them from state to state. Because of that, I think you can cause the millers to lose a lot of sales and it might even make it less worth the trouble to work in this industry. A lot of puppy millers claim to sell "purebred" animals. People in the US frequently have the discretionary income to afford them but a lot of third world countries do not. Plus, shipping them in would be incredibly expensive and cut right into their profit margin. Another argument is that although there is some money behind puppy milling, a lot of people who are hands on (or hands on once removed) are living a subsistence living. Moving and setting up a new operation costs money that they might not have. Finally, getting people involved on a local level to lobby for reform can serve to educate.

Truth be told, I am not always a big fan of rallies/protests (though I would attend this one if I could). Zippy the Pinhead tends to show up with good intentions, a stupid sign, an arrogant smirk and a holier than thou attitude that appeals to kooks but results in reasonable people being embarassed to be associated with the cause in question.

Zippy the Pinhead tends to show up with good intentions, a stupid sign, an arrogant smirk and a holier than thou attitude that appeals to kooks but results in reasonable people being embarassed to be associated with the cause in question.

This made me laugh. :)

But unfortunately, you are correct. My hope is this meeting will be a discussion on a logical, reasonable level, though we can be assured that Zippy will show up and stir the pot.

Note: if Zippy is reading this, please stay home on November 6.

UPDATE TO ORIGINAL POST:

The time for the meeting has been changed. It will now be:

2:30pm in room 412C

Thanks, everyone.

How did this meeting go?

Yes, I'd like to know, too.

I would also like to know how the meeting went...

They decided that they're against puppy mills.

They decided that they're against puppy mills.
Wow! You must've made it to the meeting! :D

Sorry, I didn't realize anyone had inquired about the meeting until I saw Midtowner had posted.

Anyway, due to the time change I was not able to attend (I had a meeting at work that I couldn't get out of), but I received feedback about how it went. Basically, this was beginning discussions regarding the draft plan to regulate breeders who have 25 or more dogs, cats, puppies, or kittens. The plan is similar to laws in other states, and requires the minimum USDA standards as indicated in the original post. Several different groups were represented and recommendations were made about various issues they'd like the law to address such as who would be in charge of the regulations, if the law would extend to include "rescues" that may not keep the appropriate sanitary conditions, enforcement of the law, etc.

Again, it's just the beginning of what we hope will be strong legislation that will discourage neglectful, sometimes cruel, and irresponsible breeders in Oklahoma.

Thanks for asking, and I'll be sure to update as I get more info.

I heard they want to require all rescue organizations and breeders to get a $1,000-per-year permit. Is that true?

You guys need to hook up with a national organization such as the SPCA so that this sort of legislation can be simultaneously pushed in all 50 states as some sort of "Uniform" law.

Or better yet, as an organization, lobby Congress. Who is going to come out "for" puppy mills? Better yet, does anyone think that the industry is sufficiently organized to adequately represent itself to Congress as opposed to the animal rights folks? I doubt it.

This legislation is worthless unless it's in all 50 states. Otherwise, you're just playing a shell game.

You'd be surprised at how difficult it is to get this type of legislation passed. Likely due to limited resources of whichever organization is tasked with enforcement.

FYI, there is a federal Animal Welfare Act already in place and "enforced" by the USDA, but it doesn't quite reach as far as necessary. Steps are being made in various states in the U.S., but as long as people continue to purchase animals from these puppy mills, there will continue to be a problem.

And in case you're interested in reading about what you've suggested, you can read about it on the website of the Humane Society of the United States:

Get the Facts on Puppy Mills | The Humane Society of the United States (http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/get_the_facts_on_puppy_mills/index.html)

I don't think it is useless to get state legislation. There are a number of national organizations such as the Animal Defense Fund but we lack a national consensus on the issue, at this point. Protection for dogs is like a number of other issues that involve a changing of public perception (slavery and the need to protect children comes to mind). We are living in a culture where we have a range of opinions that range from,"It's JUST a dog!!!!!" to someone who is willing to disinherit their neglectful children and set up a trustee to care for their pets after the owner's death, "because FiFi was always there for me." Many, many people will buy a dog from a pet store with no more thought than they'd give to buying a can of chili, then just as thoughtlessly drop it off at the pound (perhaps after a couple of litters) when it didn't fit in with the family. Other people will stand fast in the face of the aftermath of Katrina before they abandon their furbabies. State legislation is not ideal, but it is the best we have at this point. If we wait until there is a national consensus, a lot more animals are going to suffer. Yes, a puppy miller can change location but by making some areas less ameneable, at least some situations can be avoided while public opinion changes (or not).

Another aspect of this issue is the level of animosity and disrespect one side holds for the other, which further impedes national legislation. The "It's just a dog" group thinks the "I love my furbaby" group is silly. The ILMF group can't imagine how the IJAD group could be so callous. A legislator has to assess where his/her state falls on the issue and runs the risk of being viewed as cruel and thoughtless OR a wee bit daffy, depending on the dynamics of a given state.