No, pet store owners, puppy mill activists not on same side

Adam Stachowiak recently wrote that pet store owners and puppy mill activists were on the same side. I do not believe that.

Large commercial breeders (puppy mills) own female breeding dogs for the single purpose of producing as many puppies as often as they can. The female dog is often treated as other commercial "livestock." Once the dog quits producing pups, she is not taken into the family as a loving companion, and since few (other than local humane societies) will take an old sick dog she is often discarded. In a way using dogs in this manner is akin to owning slaves. Pet stores need a constant and reliable source of "product" as any other business does. Relying on noncommercial breeders would not provide a consistent supply either in breed or quantity. Relying on "rescue" dogs and pups may supply the quantity but not the high-priced breeds. If the store is a franchise, such may not comply with the franchisers' commitment or marketing strategy.

Puppy mill activists are concerned with the humane conditions and the frequency of the breeding operation. Pet store interests are primarily commercial. Only when the pet store is genuinely concerned with where and how their live product is produced do their interests intersect.

Jim Thomas

Naperville