Talk:Puppy mill

message: I notice most of the stronger claims in this article are sourced from organizations such as the ASPCA, etc. Does this not violate the WP:NPOV policy? —Memotype::T 01:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that since puppy mill itself is a relatively derogatory term, that groups that oppose these puppy mills, and actually have referenced material, or have conducted undercover investigations, are a reasonable source. I notice that the Kennel Club and other groups who might be pro-breeding are also included in the refs, but I believe that even those groups are opposed to intensive breeding as might occur at a puppy mill. It's a little bit like the Cruelty to animals article - there just aren't that many people in favor of it. Bob98133 (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is ASPCA a reliable and neutral source? 

message: My friend just told me that puppy mills were made illegal in his state. He's an internet friend, mind you, and he didn't tell which state it was. So, can somebody figure which state they were made illegal in? 24.179.27.28 (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where? 

message: "According to the Humane Society of the United States, there are an estimated 10,000 licensed and unlicensed puppy mills in the United States, in total selling more than 2,000,000 puppies annually."
It appears that even if you are licensed by the US Department of Agriculture, submit to regular inspection, and abide by all regulations the Humane Society will still consider a business a "puppy-mill" if it is a "commercial" operation. This amorphous definition and unacceptable. It is borderline slanderous to imply that a breeder is a "puppy-mill" when they are licensed by the USDA, comply with regulations, and submit to regular inspections. This article should be retitled "Unlicensed Dog Breeders" and should specifically exclude licensed breeders who submit to inspections and comply with regulations.
::The Humane Society does not have a monopoly on defining "puppy mill", nor is it a term that only they use. It's a term in common usage to describe high volume breeding operations which are abusive by their very nature. 
::There's no such thing as borderline slanderous. Statements are either actionable defamation or  a legitimate exercise of free speech. Ironically, accusing someone of borderline slander is more likely to be actionable defamation than calling a breeder a puppy mill, which will be subject to a reckless indifference standard. Since puppy mills are an issue of public interest, the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech gives speakers more leeway to criticize them.
::In addition, contrary to your assumption, the fact a breeder passed a USDA inspection does not mean they are not a puppy mill - USDA breeder inspections do not evaluate compliance with animal welfare laws of any kind.
::0 for 3.
:::I just made an abortive attempt to fix some seehe U.S. centracism in the article, but geve it up because that would require more rewriting that I'm prepared to do. Please read WP:GLOBALIZE, though. Also please note that the article does not assert that the Humane Society (either the Humane Society of the United States or Humane societies generally) has a monopoly on defining the term the term puppy mill. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Unlicensed Dog Breeders" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Puppy mill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120325223228/http://www.leadtheway.org.au/aboutthebill.html to http://www.leadtheway.org.au/aboutthebill.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120325223232/http://www.leadtheway.org.au/clovermoore.html to http://www.leadtheway.org.au/clovermoore.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 03:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The following sentence was removed from the lead: "No standardized legal definition for "puppy mill" exists." 
A Red herring is a fact or statement which is designed to mislead or distract attention away from the main facts or concepts of of an article, essay, situation, etc. 
The article is not about laws (although laws concerning pet breeding for profit are important to it.) No mention of "laws" was made in the lead before the sentence, so the sentence didn't build upon what came before--in fact it was totally discontinuous. Wikipedia is not a legal publication--its primary concern is not laws. For all these reasons, the sentence was a red herring and needed removal. Done. Tapered (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. There was context that preceded the seeming red herring described above. I discovered it by accident, and restored the entire quote, edited out in Feb 2014, by Defaultdon1998. He made only 3 edits, all to this article on this subject, so I won't bother with notification. Tapered (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Red herring removed from lead

message: It can not be overstated that the private pet store industry depends on breeders, and upon the "pure-bred" label to sell animals at marked up prices. The government crack down on animal abuses were met by pressure from these private pet stores due to a loss of revenue.
See link:  http://bogartsdaddy.com/bouvier/bouv_pages/article-inquire-puppymills-akc.htm
The now deceased Robert L. Gryder of Docktor Pet Center in Biloxi, Mississippi was once such owner singled-out by the AKC. The ACK stopped giving licenses to a known puppy-mill supply to his store.  Mr. Gryder was less concerned about the health of the animals than he was abut his own profit.  He stated in his 1991 letter to the AKC that this would "cause irreparable harm to our business."
But you see, he was not being truthful. I worked for Mr. Gryder in 1997 and I saw the conditions that led up to the lawsuit(s) that helped put his company out of business.  A customer sued his store because they purchased one dog that died and the replacement dog died as well.  In fact, it was a normal occurrence for animals to die in this store.
I had no training and only a highs school degree when I was hired to take care of the animals. From day one I had a medicine cabinet filled with vaccines and drugs, and it was my responsibility to medicate the animals in the store as needed. Part of our responsibility was to walk the store each morning both for cleanliness, but also to look for any animal deaths or injuries overnight.  Animals who were deceased were called "Shaeffers" and placed in plastic bags and then into a full size refrigerator to be picked up by the veterinarian. Gryder Pet Stores did pay for the services of a veterinarian, but he was not on staff and only visited the animals 1) when they were new 2) on weekly visits and 3) if he was called to the store for emergencies.  To answer the commentary above, yes it is known by pet store staff that all animals can be abused by breeders. It was normal for us to receive animals with colds, coughs, tics, ear mites or just be covered in their own feces due to air transport.  Sick animals were removed from the floor and placed in a backroom for medical treatment.  Rodents especially are prone to dehydration and saline bags were kept on hand to given by the staff to sick or dying animals. I quit shortly after a puppy died overnight. Within an hour of him arriving from the airport, I witnessed the dog foaming from the mouth, and despite the fact that I was trusted with other medical treatment for all the animals, Robert Gryder and his wife decided that I must not have had enough training to know a foaming dog when I saw it. They did not call the vet to look at the dog, but admitted the vet was across town playing golf. The puppy died alone in his cage overnight with only a towel to comfort it. While I was there, we also had a slew of rabbits die, and the birds had to be removed from the store and placed in quarantine, because a customer became sick with E. Coli. 
While these are the experiences of only one pet store, they are relevant in that Robert L. Gryder choose to place pressure on the AKC, despite knowing he had a store full of sick and dying animals, and that his store was later plagued with lawsuits due to selling these animals to the public.  It is also relevant because the public thinks the problems stop once the animal leaves the puppy mill, and is largely unaware of the health problems that continue in the pet stores.  Also it may be the breeders and such irresposible pet store owners who have decided that the puppy mill term must be pejorative. Think about it, they can't take the public to court for making truthful statements, but they can make nasty comments from behind their computer screens to help cover up the known abuses in their industry, and few members of the public would have motive to argue with the term, unless they saw the term as hurtful to their own business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:9028:75B3:CB5C:3F24 (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private Pet Store Owners Protecting Puppy Mills 

message: Hello, I've never used the talk feature before so I hope I am doing this right. I wanted to pose a conversation or discussion about the use of the word "bitch" within the article, specifically the "Differences in breeding conditions" section. I didn't see any similar conversations on this page so I started a new one. I know that this is word does mean female dog, but it is also a very offensive word for females, which is part of the reason why I think it could be corrected. However, my real concern regarding this word and its use in the article has to do with context. What I am referring to is the rest of the article. The word "bitch" was used four times in one paragraph only. It was nowhere else on the page and yet the term "female" or "female dog" came up 9 times throughout the page in different sections. Seeing how the use of "bitch" was both excessive and exclusive to one paragraph I felt this was not mere coincidence or someone trying to use different vocab, both of which I could understand. The use of this word feels deliberate given the rest of the page. Therefore, I think either the one paragraph should be edited or there should be more consistency/different vocab used throughout the article so it isn't so centered on one paragraph. I am open to hearing people's thoughts on this and discussing it. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.178.210 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored, so the only concern one should have here is consistency. 93 05:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology  

message: An IP has been repeatedly cutting any attempt at defining a puppy mill in the lede, arguing in edit summaries that this is "unfactual irrelevant informaion" and "Please read: "no standardized legal definition for "puppy mill" exists." Naming a court case that was thrown out is irrelevant to this article!)". The lack of a standard legal definition doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to explain to the reader what a puppy mill is - cutting it to merely say that the term refers to any "commercial dog breeding facility" is unhelpful. The animal welfare concerns are written about at length in the article, and the WP:LEDE should reflect this. We should probably be going even further and mentioning this - without quotation and as a statement of fact - in the opening sentence. --McGeddon (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No standardized legal definition 

message: I noticed this section has a lot of information on Missouri and not a lot on the other states in the U.S. 
    an example to include: California just passed a bill that January 2019 pet stores will be required to sell animals from shelters, rescue centers or adoption agencies. Governor Jerry Brown said stores could receive up to a five hundred dollar fine for selling an animal that is not a rescue. 
01:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legislative Response in the US 

message: I noticed in the common problems section peta was used to source the following sentences: "The conditions in puppy mills are considered inhumane because all of the dogs are in a small, dirty area which is confined with disease and bacteria. Because of the poor living conditions, dogs are often sick and malnourished. Food is often found crawling with bugs and feces is almost everywhere. Health issues that are prevalent in puppy mills consist of giardia, mange, heartworm, respiratory infections, and much more." I am not sure that PETA is a reliable source to get information from. I also read the article that was linked with the citation 19 and it does not state any of those health issues in the article. Here is the link for the article in citation 19https://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animal-issues/pet-trade/puppy-mills/
01:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peta as a Source? 

message: I think we need to talk more about the differences between reputable hobby breeding and bad hobby breeders because puppy mill is a term that describes both non-licensed and licensed. The conversation so far only includes the ones that do not follow the rules.
02:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Hobby Breeding vs. Good Hobby Breeding  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Puppy mill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071104143134/http://www.cityofboston.gov/animalcontrol/ready.asp to http://www.cityofboston.gov/animalcontrol/ready.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416104435/http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm to http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416104435/http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm to http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am making/editing this puppy mill wiki page for my English class.
Can somebody give me some advice?
What are some good sources to use?
MachoCoMachoMan (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions & Improvements  

message: According to both PETA and Vier Pfoten, instances of people wanting easy on the money sorts of puppies
have been equally on the rise. I rung alarm bells to my studymates bare minimum already on an already a last chance for sus behaviours of a candidate at University of Halle, as this candidate itself appeared to be a hobbyist breeder of puppies already.
What to do against of this?
Police does not always show respect for anti sus behaviour opposers in my country.
Anyways what I did: link to Wühltischwelpen, as equally of helpfulness as PETA/Vier Pfoten to avoid bad sorts of easy on the money breeders of any animal species kind including puppies.
Wühltischwelpen - nein danke! (wuehltischwelpen.de)
Chemnitz and Halle also see missing dogs and cats of owners of any kind, too.
Even this is its own tragedy.
What to do against even this? 2001:9E8:1216:D801:3DCC:AD70:5864:D786 (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem swapped over to Germany