East Liberty Petland to trial selling shelter animals!

We are delighted to announce that the East Liberty Petland store plans to convert to adoptions-only of dogs and cats in the near future.

Eric and Marci Caplan, who own the store in East Liberty, Pittsburgh, have been in talks with two of the local animal shelters, the Animal Rescue League of Western Pa and the Western Pa Humane Society, about this arrangement.  We do not yet know if potential adopters will be screened at Petland, as they are in animal shelters, so although we are calling the arrangement “adoptions-only” it may be more accurate to say that they will be “selling shelter animals.”

We are approaching this news with skepticism, hope and optimism, and thank the Caplans for taking the plunge.  There will be a trial period of several weeks, which, if successful, will lead to a more permanent arrangement.  We hope that this is a lasting relationship that benefits all parties, especially the animals.  We really hope that this store is more successful at selling shelter animals than the Wheaton (Il) store, which reverted back to selling purposely bred dogs after a 3 month trial of adopting out shelter animals.

The Post Gazette report is below.  We note that the Caplans say that they have been selling USDA-licensed and inspected puppy breeders, and of course we have to say that, as most of our readers know, USDA-licensed does not mean cruelty free.  The USDA sets very low standards for their puppy breeders, and this is a big reason why we oppose the sale of purposely bred animals.

Petland to sell animals from shelters

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

By Linda Fuoco, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Robin Rombach/Post-Gazette

Eric and March Caplan hold some of the last non-shelter puppies they have for sale at their Petland store in East Liberty. Once these puppies have been sold, the store will only have shelter dogs and kittens for sale.

Puppies and kittens from commercial breeders will no longer be sold at Petland in East Liberty, a regular target of animal rights picketers.

Instead, that puppy in the window — as well as kittens and rabbits — will come from two local shelters.

“It’s a good thing to do,” said Eric Caplan, when asked about the change. He and his wife, Marci,, own the franchise for that Petland store, located at 6401 Penn Ave. in the Village of Eastside.

The store inventory currently includes five purebred puppies and three “designer” mixes, including a fluffy cockapoo, which is a cocker spaniel-poodle cross.

When those puppies are sold, the store will bring in puppies, kittens and rabbits from the Western Pennsylvania Humane Society and kittens from the Animal Rescue League of Western Pennsylvania. The store owners hope it will happen in the next week or so.

The Caplans are calling it ASAP: Animal Shelter Adoption Program. The animals will live in the store, and not all of their time will be spent in cages. The store has indoor exercise and play areas.

“We look at this as a step in the right direction,” said Dan Rossi, executive director of the Animal Rescue League. “We don’t get many puppies,” but the shelter is inundated with kittens. The Petland store does not have adequate living and exercise facilities for larger animals, but adult dogs may be brought from the Larimer shelter to Petland on weekends for adoption events, Mr. Rossi said.

Lee Nesler, executive director of the Western Pennsylvania Humane Society, said she is “really pleased. I think it’s going to be a wonderful relationship. It’s making a commitment to save lives.”

Very few puppies are turned in to Allegheny County shelters, presumably because spay and neuter campaigns are working. Ms. Nestler said the local Humane Society gets puppies from surrounding counties “and from a shelter in Georgia where unfortunately there are plenty of puppies” that need homes.

ASAP has the approval of Petland corporate officials.

“We have many franchises that have partnerships with shelters and rescue organizations” and a Petland store in Texas “has never sold purebreds. They’ve always been totally shelter adoptions,” said Elizabeth Kunzelman, director of marketing and communications at Petland’s corporate office in Chillicothe, Ohio.

Petland has 100 stores, and only four are corporate-owned. The rest are franchises.

Eric and Marci Caplan have owned the East Liberty Petland for two years.

Small numbers of animal rights activists have regularly picketed the Caplans’ store. Picketers object to purebred puppies being sold in stores while millions of animals in shelters and rescue groups need homes.

Picketers also said Petland sells animals from so-called “puppy mills” — described as large-scale for-profit facilities where breeding animals and puppies are kept in crowded, filthy conditions with little or no socialization.

Mr. Caplan said the puppies he and his wife sold came from commercial breeders licensed and inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, he said, and from some local breeders.

The Caplans will add a service fee to the shelter animals that are sold, he said. “It won’t be a profit. It will be to help cover our costs.”

Kittens are usually $60 at the Animal Rescue League. The Caplans expect to add about $30 to $40 to that cost to cover the care they provide. The Western Pennsylvania Humane Society puppy adoption fee is $200, and Mr. Caplan said he’ll add about $100 to the cost.

The adoption fee includes neutering by a veterinarian, inoculations and microchips. The Humane Society fee also includes the cost of training classes.

Linda Wilson Fuoco: lfuoco@post-gazette.com or                412…       .

“Missourians for Animal Care”: can you guess who owns this website?

This is the laughable name given to a website dedicated to defending Missouri agricultural groups.  The site “Missourians for Animal Care” promotes animal vivisection, agriculture, dog breeding, and voting no on Prop B.  The actual act of defending these causes is less offensive than the misleading name of the site.

Canada approves first ban on pet store puppy sales

Richmond, Vancouver, became the first suburb in Canada to approve the ban the sale of pet store puppies on Tuesday night.  The move won’t be effective until April 2011, but may be the push needed to propel the rest of that country to follow suit.

Councilman Ken Johnson, who initiated the ban, acknowledges that the ban will not in itself end puppy mills.  “This is a step in the direction of sending the message to puppy mills that your practices are not acceptable,” he said.

The full Richmond Review story is below.

Richmond is well on its way to becoming the first city in Canada to ban the sale of puppies in pet stores.

On Tuesday night council unanimously approved third reading of an amended bylaw that would prohibit the sale of dogs from Richmond storefronts, effective April 30, 2011.

Bylaw proponents say the ban will limit impulse purchases and reduce the number of dogs bred in inhumane conditions without proper health care.

The ban was initiated by Coun. Ken Johnston.

“This will not end puppy mills, I get that. This is a step in the direction of sending the message to puppy mills that your practices are not acceptable,” Johnston said.

Other councillors hope the ban will encourage people to adopt puppies in desperate need of a good home.

“There will always be people who want specialty breeds, but people can go to shelters and the SPCA and rescue operations to obtain their pets,” said Coun. Sue Halsey-Brandt.

Council has agreed to send a letter to provincial representatives emphasizing the urgent need for provincial regulations regarding the condition of dogs offered for sale.

Once the province comes forward with regulations, council may consider rescinding the bylaw.

The move was a victory for the dozens of animal rights activists who filled council chambers on Tuesday, many wearing red and white “Adopt don’t shop” tags.

B.C. SPCA spokesperson Lorie Chortyk reiterated her support for the ban.

“What a ban would do is effectively remove one of the venues that (puppy mills) have to sell their dogs,” she said. “Without that venue their profits go down and I think it would actually discourage the industry.”

The amended bylaw would affect three local pet stores: Pet Habitat, PJ’s Pets and Pets Wonderland.

Local and regional pet store owners spoke before council in a last ditch effort to thwart the puppy ban.

Robert Church of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council said council is making a “huge mistake.”

“Why would you shut down the only visible source of puppies, the only source which the public, which the city and which animal protection officers are able to monitor? The vast majority of pets come from unregulated sources,” he said.

Church said it is not in pet stores’ best economic interest to buy from puppy mills.

“If there is a problem, for the most part, pet stores will pay the vet bills. We are on the hook if we deal with substandard breeders.”

The solution, he said, is to lobby the provincial government to establish an animal care act that licenses, regulates and inspects all breeders, pet stores and animal shelters.

Gary Batt of Petland in Surrey agreed, pointing to Manitoba’s recently enacted animal protection regulations. He said the puppy ban bylaw discriminates against just three stores and may be in contravention of fair trade practices and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“Breeders, kennels, backyard breeders, etcetera, they are all exempt from the bylaw and may sell, but the pet store may not sell the very same puppy,” he said.

Ernest Ang, owner of Pet Habitat in Richmond Centre, said he is against cruelty to animals, that’s why he is in the pet business.

“There’s only three pet stores in Richmond and a lot of customers come to me and say ‘Why are you guys being targeted? You’re doing a good job.’”

He suggested working with the city, B.C. SPCA and the Richmond Animal Protection Society to find a better solution.

The puppy ban bylaw still needs to undergo a series of public consultations.

Related stories can be found in The Epoch Times, The British Columbia SPCA news, and The Vancouver Sun.

We find it interesting that pet store owner Ernest Ang says that the ban is “unfair.”  Evidently, he does not purchase his puppies from puppy mills, but from a ”reputable USDA licensed kennel in the United States.”

The Business of Proposition B

There has been much talk of late of Proposition B, Missouri’s Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, which will be voted on in November this year.

The Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act seeks to improve the lives of dogs by requiring commercial breeders to provide each dog under their care with such basics as sufficient food and clean water, necessary veterinary care, adequate housing and space, as well as access to regular exercise.  It’s hard to believe that anyone could bicker with a law requiring these necessities for dogs.   Over 190,000 Missourians signed a petition to have this bill introduced on November’s ballot.

Lawmakers in Iowa and Oklahoma enacted puppy mill legislation in those states earlier this year.  After Missouri, they are the two largest dog-breeding states in the nation. In 2009, 10 states approved legislation to address puppy mill problems.

Naturally, Prop B has its usual flock of nay-sayers.  Breeders say that the proposed bill seeks to shut down all animal agriculture, despite the fact that it concerns only dogs.  And of course we have heard the usual rhetoric against the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) from the usual Center for Consumer Freedom followers.  Evidently, these people believe that casting aspersions on the HSUS itself automatically negates the causes that the HSUS supports.

I think we can all agree that the dogs and puppies of Missouri, the PUPPY MILL STATE OF AMERICA, could use some changes in their current breeding laws.  So Missourians out there, please vote YES to Prop B on November’s ballot!  Even if you aren’t living in Missouri, join the campaign at the YES!  on Prop B website.

For further reading, try the following links:

• Watch the TV ad promoting Prop B
• The ASPCA’s take
• A summary of the bill in Wayne Pacelle’s blog in the Huffington Post
• Opposition to Prop B:  The Southeastern Missourian, Neosho Daily News.com
• Missouri’s Dirty Dozen (a report on Missouri’s 10 worst puppy mills)

Comparing Pa to other states in animal cruelty

Pennsylvania is neither the best nor the worst state with respect to animal cruelty laws, according to two studies conducted recently.  The York Dispatch discusses the studies, conducted by the HSUS and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

The Humane Society based its study on 65 different animal protection issues in 10 categories, including fighting, cruelty, puppy mills, wildlife, animals in research and companion-animal laws.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund ranked jurisdictions based on cumulative scores to 38 questions covering 14 categories of animal protection laws, including penalties, general prohibitions, law-enforcement policies, animal fighting and cruelty reporting requirements.

These findings were reported several months ago; the attached story is an update since then.

Read the entire York Dispatch story here.

An excerpt is below:

Pennsylvania has no felony provision for first-time neglect or cruelty, something the York County SPCA would like to see changed, according to Smith — especially for starvation cases.

“In my mind, there is nothing worse that you can do to an animal than the prolonged suffering of starvation,” she said. “But I don’t think I’ll ever see that in my lifetime.”

Currently, someone who allows an animal to starve in Pennsylvania will likely face only a summary non-traffic citation, Smith said. It’s possible to bump the charge to a misdemeanor, but that would require convincing a county judge or jury that the starvation constituted “malicious, torturous behavior,” she said.

As a result, most people found guilty in York County of allowing their pets to starve to death receive only fines, and no jail time.

Pennsylvania does not require vets to report cruelty, doesn’t mandate counseling for offenders — although judges may order that — and doesn’t mandate that shelters be reimbursed for costs associated with feeding, housing and caring for seized animals that owners decline to relinquish.

Sarah Speed, Pennsylvania state director of the Humane Society of the United States, said she’d like to see Pennsylvania’s laws expanded to let district judges (who handle all summary cases) order counseling and anger-management classes. She said state law should also require cruelty offenders to reimburse shelters for costs associated with keeping seized pets.

The worst: Both studies cited North Dakota, Idaho and Mississippi as having the worst animal protection laws in the country.

Mississippi and North Dakota have no humane police officers and no requirement that police enforce animal protection laws, according to the Animal Legal Defense Fund study, while Idaho has “inadequate” provisions for humane officers and no enforcement requirement for police.

Those three states also have no felony provisions for animal cruelty, neglect or abandonment, according to the organization.

Read the full report at the York Dispatch.

Wheaton Petland reverts back to selling commercially bred pups

After only 3 months of trying an adoptions-0nly business model, the Petland store in Wheaton, Il, is reverting back to selling commercially bred puppies.  The owner, Adam Stachowiak, posted a letter to explain the reason for the change.  We are suprised and disappointed that this sad turn of events has occurred after such a short period of time.

If what Adam says is true – that the public haven’t embraced the rescue animals – then that is direct proof that we, the consuming public, are responsible for the existence of puppy mills.  Until consumers start rejecting commercially bred puppies, pet stores like the Wheaton Petland, will feel that they have no choice but to provide them.

Here is an interesting blog on the situation.

Austin Petland store closes amid new bans on pet sales

After the Austin Animal Advisory Commission recently approved a proposal to ask the Austin City Council to ban retail sales of companion animals, the only store in the city that sold pets, the Austin Petland, closed its doors in anticipation of the ban.  Read the full story at the links below.

KVUE

The Statesman

Walletpop (blog)

The full KVUE story from July 14 is below.

Wednesday evening, with a unanimous vote, the City of Austin took one more step to becoming a no-kill city when it comes to animal shelters.

The Austin Animal Advisory Commission approved a proposal to ask the Austin City Council to create a ban on the retail sales of companion animals like kittens and puppies at stores.

The only store in Austin selling kittens and puppies is Petland in South Austin. Now, the Southpark Meadows store will close its doors for good on Sunday, July 18.

“You know it’s going to be inevitable. There’s no point in just prolonging this, the store is going to eventually have to close down,” said Ben Guerra, the manager at Petland.

“We’ve tried to implement this no kill plan but we’re not there yet, we are not no kill, we’re working on it. We’ve got a lot of work to do. It’s going to be an 18-month to two year process,” added Lundstedt.

“The people that are protesting are trying to say this is a victory. How is it a victory when 19 people of our staff are being left without jobs?” questioned Guerra.

The Austin City Council is expected to tackle the issue between now and October.

The Animal Advisory Commission says that Petland was buying animals from puppy mills across the country and selling them in Austin without them being spayed or neutered, an accusation Ben Guerra denied.

“Every time animals go into the Town Lake Animal Center and have to be killed, that’s tax dollars that don’t have to be spent,” said David Lundstedt, a member of the Austin Animal Advisory Commission.

N.C. puppy mill law killed with the help of the pork industry

The N.C. Pork Council, repeating rhetoric pushed by industry lobbying groups such as the Center for Consumer Freedom, helped fail a proposed bill to regulate the state’s dog breeders for the second year in a row.  Why would the Pork industry have a stake in the dog breeding industry?  They don’t.  They opposed the bill because they don’t like the HSUS.  Read the report from the Charlotte Observer.

RALEIGH A bill aimed at combating puppy mills by regulating commercial dog breeders in North Carolina has failed for the second straight year, in part due to opposition from an industry that doesn’t deal in dogs: the state’s pork producers.

The N.C. Pork Council, which represents a $2.2 billion industry in the state, opposed Senate Bill 460, which sought to “eliminate abusive practices and provide for the humane care and treatment of dogs and puppies by establishing standards for their care at commercial breeding operations.”

Angie Whitener, the pork council’s lobbyist, said her group does not oppose puppies so much as the bill’s main backers, the Humane Society of the United States.

“Our opposition is solely based on the proponent of the bill,” Whitener said. “We’re very worried about this powerful, very wealthy animal rights organization.”

The bill, which did not address livestock, was narrowly approved by the Senate last year. The House sent it to its finance committee, where it stalled this week because, according to the chairman, it was “too divisive.”

“There was a lot of acrimony, and we decided as chairs not to take it up,” said Rep. Paul Luebke, a Durham Democrat and the House Finance Committee’s senior chairman. “It seems to make more sense to start over in 2011 and try to build a consensus bill.”

The Humane Society estimates there are about 300 puppy mills in the state that go unnoticed because owners sell the dogs on the Internet.

Last year, authorities rescued hundreds of dogs from a suspected Wayne County puppy mill. And in April, Guilford County sheriff’s deputies seized nearly 100 dogs from a breeding kennel whose owner was indicted last month on 12 counts of cruelty to animals by a Guilford County grand jury, according to the (Greensboro) News & Record.

The bill would define commercial breeders as someone who sells dogs and has 15 or more female dogs and 30 or more puppies. It calls for these operations to provide daily exercise, veterinary care, appropriate housing and recordkeeping. The bill would also require commercial breeders to register with the state’s Department of Agriculture and give counties authority to investigate violations related to commercial breeding operations.

Sen. Don Davis, a Greene County Democrat who sponsored the bill in the Senate, said it was meant to “take precautionary measures to make sure dogs are not kept in the worst conditions.” Pet shops and animal shelters in the state are subject to similar regulations, Davis said.

“This would simply bring individual commercial breeding in line with that practice,” he said.

But Whitener, the pork council’s lobbyist, said the bill was about more than dogs. She said she believes the Humane Society’s end goal is to eventually stop meat production for human consumption.

Whitener noted that the Humane Society of the United States sponsored Proposition 2, a ballot initiative passed two years ago in California. Among other regulations, the law requires that calves, chickens and pigs be kept in areas where they can freely lie down, stand up and fully extend their limbs. It was intended to ban the use of tightly confining crates for breeding sows and cages for hens. Californians overwhelmingly approved the ballot measure.

Whitener also pointed to a news release on the Humane Society’s website that said the organization had purchased stock in Krispy Kreme, the doughnut company based in Winston-Salem, and planned to encourage “Krispy Kreme to move away from egg suppliers that confine hens in cages.”

“This shows what their true intentions are,” in North Carolina, Whitener said.

But Kim Alboum, the Humane Society’s lobbyist, who has been trying to get the bill passed, said North Carolina is not a ballot measure state, so it could not replicate something like California’s Proposition 2.

And S.B. 460 “was just about the thousands of dogs that are suffering in puppy mills in North Carolina,” Alboum said. “The slippery-slope argument is insulting to our legislators because they vote on the merits of each individual bill. Because they vote to regulate this unregulated industry does not mean they are going to vote for every animal bill.”

But dog groups also oppose the bill. Steve Wallis, president and lobbyist for the N.C. Federation of Dog Clubs, said the bill would hurt hobby breeders and cause counties to spend money they don’t have to enforce such a law.

Read the responses to this article at the Charlotte Observer site.

 

Wisconsin pet store owner finds new licensing rules unreasonable

From the Green Bay Press Gazette:

Puppy Prints pet store owner Colleen Halopka said new “ridiculous” animal handler regulations in Green Bay could put her out of business if she isn’t given more time to comply with them.

The Green Bay City Council on June 15 approved changes to the city’s animal establishment licensing rules, increasing licensing requirements. The new rules took effect immediately. Licenses are now required for pet stores, grooming and breeding services and animal shelters.

The rules replaced ineffective ones, assistant city attorney Kail Decker said.

They require animal handlers to post breeder information publicly, give the local animal control officer more explicit licensing oversight and bring license holders in line with animal care standards set by the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, an organization backing pet store interests.

Decker said pet stores should already be following pet industry standards and shouldn’t have to change much to comply.

But Halopka said some of the rules are unreasonable, and she fears they will take away customers.

She said she was told to comply by July 9, but said if that date isn’t extended, she may have to close Puppy Prints, 424 S. Military Ave., at least temporarily.

License holders will have to post information on cages about the breeders and facilities that produced their animals — including the name, address and phone number of the breeder and facility — and whether the animal came from an unlicensed facility.

Halopka said posting breeder information publicly could let customers buy directly from the breeder instead of her. She said she would rather give that information to people only after they buy from her.

Another new rule gives more explicit permission to the city’s humane officer to review license applications before the city issues or renews them. Under the new rules, the humane officer can make license recommendations to the city and review applications, things not clearly included in previous rules.

Rules previously allowed customers to get their money back from a pet store within seven days of buying an animal if a veterinarian found it was “sick or injured” the day it was sold. People could file a lawsuit against the pet store if denied a refund. Changes to the rule allow customers who get such a refund to also keep their pet.

“They’re opening up the doors for people to try to get the dog for free. … I think the term ‘sick’ needs to be more defined. Sick with what?” Halopka said.

Decker said allowing customers to keep an item after getting a refund is rare, but noted similar rules already exist in some cases in Wisconsin.

Breeders and animal shelters didn’t previously need licenses. Decker said he is not sure how many will come under the new rules.

Bill Krouse, who has organized protests at Puppy Prints, said the rules allow the city to “enforce what people should be following anyway.”

Krouse said protesters who picketed in front of Puppy Prints were trying to educate people about puppy mills, breeding facilities considered inhumane.

Halopka said she does not get her dogs from puppy mills or knowingly sell sick puppies, accusations she said protesters made.

Read comments to this article in the Green Bay Press Gazette.

Some Michigan pet stores pledge to become adopt-only!

The hard work of the southeast Michigan chapter of Puppy Mill Awareness has paid off, with nearly 100 pet stores pledging to take the “puppy friendly” pet store pledge.  These stores have committed to abstain from selling purposely bred pups, and instead support animal shelters and their adoption efforts.  The HSUS provides a list of these stores, and we’re sorry to say that none of them is a Petland. 

In an earlier release, Puppy Mill Awareness southeast MI said that Petland Novi and Petland Westland were amongst those stores that they asked to sign the pledge.  According to the HSUS report, these stores declined.  The Petland stores are in dubious company.  None of the other “puppy-selling” pet stores on Puppy Mill Awareness’s list pledged to become puppy friendly.  Read more in the releases by Puppy Mill Awareness southeast Michigan and the HSUS.  Below is the HSUS release.

Thanks to the efforts of local advocates with the Puppy Mill Awareness Meetup of Southeast Michigan, nearly one hundred Michigan pet stores have recently signed The Humane Society of the United States’ puppy friendly pet store pledge — committing not to sell puppies, and instead support local animal adoption programs and provide literature that helps customers learn how to locate a reputable breeder. The HSUS applauds these retailers because their actions prove it is not necessary to support the cruel puppy mill trade to operate a successful pet-related business.

“These stores have set a positive example of corporate responsibility for other businesses to follow,” said Jill Fritz, Michigan state director for The HSUS. “Pet stores that profit from the cruel puppy mill industry need to step up and do the right thing by stopping their puppy sales. I am thrilled to have wonderful local advocates like the Puppy Mill Awareness Meetup of Southeast Michigan working in our area to increase the public’s awareness of puppy mills.”

Store owners and managers who sign The HSUS’ pledge receive a placard proclaiming, “We love puppies; that’s why we don’t sell them,” to display in the store, as well as materials about adopting a dog or finding a responsible breeder. The HSUS encourages shoppers to purchase pet supplies at stores displaying the puppy-friendly sign.

The independent retailers in Michigan that have recently signed the puppy friendly pledge to not sell puppies are:

• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Adrian)
• Dogma Catmantoo (Ann Arbor)
• Green Pawz (Ann Arbor)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Ann Arbor)
• Pet Supplies”Plus” (Ann Arbor)
• The Pet Emporium (Ann Arbor)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Bay City)
• Feed Rite Belleville (Belleville)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Benton Harbor)
• Premier Pet Supply (Beverly Hills)
• Doodle Dog Bakery (Birch Run)
• Napier’s Kennel Shop (Birmingham)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Bloomfield Hills)
• Big Acre (Brighton)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Canton)
• Big Acre (Caro)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Chesterfield Twp)
• Market Place Pet Supplies (Clarkston)
• Pet Food and More #5 (Clawson)
• Val’s Pet Supplies (Clawson)
• Three Dog Bakery (Clinton Township)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Clinton Twp)
• Pet Food and More #1 (Commerce Twp)
• Big Acre (Davison)
• Dirty Paws Pet Grooming Inc. (Davison)
• Doogie’s Supercenter (Davison)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Dearborn)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Detroit)
• Wags to Wiskers (Dexter)
• Choice Aquariums (Farmington Hills)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Farmington Hills)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Fenton)
• Doodle Dog Bakery (Flushing)
• Flushing Lawn & Garden (Flushing)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Fort Gratiot)
• Lucy’s Pet Supplies & Feeds (Goodrich)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Grand Blanc)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Grand Rapids)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Grand Rapids)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Grandville)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Howell)
• Pet X Supply & Tack (Howell)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Iron Mountain)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Kalamazoo)
• Healthy Pet (Lake Orion)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Lansing)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Lansing)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Lapeer)
• Feed Rite Lincoln Park (Lincoln Park)
• Chap’s Feed Store (Livonia)
• Discount Pet & Supplies (Livonia)
• Pet Food and More (Livonia)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Livonia)
• Rocko’s Pet Depot (Macomb)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Milford)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Mount Morris)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Novi)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Okemos)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Ortonville)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Owosso)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Oxford)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Petoskey)
• Gibdog Pet Supplies (Plymouth)
• Specialty Pet Supplies (Plymouth)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Portage)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Redford Township)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Rochester Hills)
• The Urban Dog (Rochester Hills)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Royal Oak)
• The Uppity Puppy (Royal Oak)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Saginaw)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (St. Clair Shores)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (St. Clair Shores)
• Swartz Creek Elevator (Swartz Creek)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Traverse City)
• Uncle Luke’s Feed Store (Troy)
• Val’s Pet Supplies III (Troy)
• Baseline Feed Store (Warren)
• K-9 Specialties (Warren)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Warren)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Washington Twp.)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Waterford)
• Goody’s Pet Store (Wayne)
• Mickey’s Pet Supplies (West Bloomfield)
• Something Fishy (Westland)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (White Lake)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (White Lake)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Woodhaven)
• Pet Supplies “Plus” (Wyoming)
• Mantis Pet Supply (Ypsilanti)

 Policy Helps Dogs Across the United States

The majority of pet stores that sell puppies carry dogs from puppy mills, which are mass production facilities that churn out large numbers of puppies under inhumane conditions. The breeding dogs at puppy mills spend their entire lives in cramped cages or kennels with little or no personal attention or quality of life. Consumers who purchase puppies from pet stores or over the Internet without seeing a breeder’s home firsthand are often unknowingly supporting this cruel puppy mill industry.

Facts

• Approximately one-third of the nation’s 9,000 independent pet stores sell puppies.
• The HSUS estimates that 2 million to 4 million puppy mill puppies are sold each year in the United States.
• Documented puppy mill conditions include over-breeding, inbreeding, minimal veterinary care, poor food and shelter, crowded cages and lack of socialization.
• Dogs kept for breeding in puppy mills suffer for years in continual confinement. They are bred as often as possible and then destroyed or discarded once they can no longer produce puppies.
• Pet stores and online sellers often use attractive Web sites to hide the truth and to dupe consumers into thinking that they are dealing with a small, reputable breeder.
• Reputable breeders never sell puppies over the Internet or through a pet store and will insist on meeting the family who will be purchasing the dog.
• Puppy mills contribute to the pet overpopulation problem, which results in millions of unwanted dogs euthanized at shelters every year.