Ap 1st Draft

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 6

Vazquez 1

Jennifer Vazquez

Charlene Keeler

Writing 39C / AP 1st draft

May 18, 2018

AP: 1st draft

Introduction

The Horrible Hundred 2017 is a report, compiled by the Humane Society of the United

States (HSUS), of the USDA inspected puppy mills inspection reports. In the 2017 “Horrible

Hundred” report there were “45 [new] dealers [and] 55 are ‘repeat offenders’ who have appeared

in one or more of our prior puppy mill reports” (The Horrible Hundred 2017). The issue with

puppy mills is that the current laws in place as an effort to ‘oversee’ puppy mills create

complications in regulation. Consequently, many puppy mills have managed to stay clandestine

and don’t adhere to the current laws. A solution to efficiently enforcing regulation is to designate

more funds to the USDA to specifically hire more people to be able to reach all puppy mills even

though they are in remote areas. Educating the young of they can adopt pets from local animal

shelters and do their research about the breeders if buying online or adopting to make sure not to

support puppy mills; moreover, not support puppy mills whom are treating the dogs inhumanely.

Through PSA and media clips we can advocate to the public that when they are looking for pets

many can be from inhumane puppy mills and the puppy can have diseases, so it is in the owner’s

interest to stop inhumane puppy mills.

History of Puppy Mills

The origins of puppy mills date back to the end of the second World War. The military

men, such as the soldiers and other government officers, were coming back home to the U.S in a
Vazquez 2

time where the economy was in decline. The economy, specifically the agriculture economy, was

collapsing and consequently there wasn’t many jobs; thus, “the U.S. Department of Agriculture

[USDA] suggested that farmers attempt to support their families by breeding pure-bred dogs”

(Towsey 161). And so inexperienced farmer and soldiers started to breed dogs with little to no

veterinary care and food since they themselves were dire circumstances where they had no

money. Here is where the breeders start to view these innocent dogs as “cash crops” instead of

considering them as pets (Towsey 159). Since breeding was done for profit, they needed to cut

corners and reduce or not even give the animals veterinary care, decent quality of sanitation, and

food. This “profit” mentality is something that has continued until this day and many current

puppy mills owner have this mindsight.

Previous attempts @ solving the issue and problems with them

In 1966 the Federal Government took a course of action against animal cruelty by passing

the Animal Welfare Act that would regulate the traffic and selling of animals in general. The

USDA was put in charge of enforcing the Animal Welfare Act, specifically the Animal and Plant

Health agency is the one whom directly works to “enforce” the AWA. The 1966 AWA set the

bare minimum standards for how the puppy mills could run which are still not an ideal or

humane way to keep these animals. Even the USDA has published on their website that “the

1966 act set minimum standards for the handling, sale, and transport of cats, dogs, nonhuman

primates, rabbits, hamsters, and guinea pigs held by animal dealers or pre-research in

laboratories.” The AWA of 1966 was so vague when it came to the terms in which how breeder

will be able to get their license as well to the standards the facilities for breeding must meet.

Section 3 of the AWA refers to how breeders will get licensed after the proper paperwork,

payments, and adherence to the standards addressed in section 13. Section 13 obscurely depicts
Vazquez 3

the minimum requirements in which the breeding facility must be kept protecting the well- being

of the dogs. These standards in the 1966 AWA, section 13, included “minimum requirements

with respect to the housing, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation, shelter from extremes of

weather and temperature, separation by species, and adequate veterinary care”.

It is evident that the 1966 AWA shows an interest to protect animals from cruel and

inhumane conditions but wasn’t necessarily inclusive to all animals. In 1970 the AWA was

amended to redefine what the term “animal” encompassed to include “warm-blooded” animals.

This allowed the USDA to regulate research facilities much closer so that the animal testing

could be supervised. The AWA was once again amended because of its vagueness in 1976 to

regulate the transportation, handling of animals. In 1990 a “Pet Protection Act” was amended

into the AWA and this further helped protect pets. To continue increasing the specificity of the

AWA it was edited again in 2002 to exclude mice, birds, rats from being protected as animals of

research. Finally, in 2007 the Animal Welfare Act was amended, and they added the Animal

Fighting Prohibition Act that was signed by President George W. Bush (Adams).

Plan of Action: Laws/Policies:

Policies: 2010 An enhanced Animal Welfare by the APHIS of the USDA. The

enforcement process. Enforcing this to its full potential across all 50 states.

Enforcement Process: Animal Care Enforcement Action (EA) Guidance for inspection

report:

1. 90-day reinspection

2. Official warning letter

3. Stipulation

4. Prosecution by general counsel


Vazquez 4

Counter-argument: Well why don’t we just have a federal law that bans all puppy mills in

the United States.

Rebuttal: It is nice to think that a federal law can be easily passed as it is spoken.

However, it is difficult to pass a federal law such as the one mentioned above, making puppy

mills illegal, because many congress members or politicians in general don’t want to appear as

“anti-business” (HSUS).

Plan of Action: Education:

Educating the children in school on how they could conduct their own research and

support animal shelters and not puppy mills that are providing inadequate care to the animals is

one way in which the children learn to become responsible when looking for a pet. They will

learn about how animals should be treated with the same love and respect the they have for each

other. Educating the young on adopting pets instead of shopping they become advocates for

humane treatment.

Plan of Action: PSA/ Social Media:

Spreading articles that show hoe inhumane the puppy mills are and broad cast more the

Horrible hundred reports in which people can see that in their own state there are inhumane

puppy mills. Starting something like the ALS ice bucket challenge but now something so we can

raise money for societies that help pets who are rescued from inhumane puppy mills and are in

dire need of veterinary assistance.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a solution to efficiently enforcing regulation is to designate more funds to

the USDA to specifically hire and train more people to be able to reach all puppy mills even

though they are in remote areas. Teaching the children in school that they can adopt pets from
Vazquez 5

local animal shelters and do their research about the breeders if buying online or adopting to

make sure not to support puppy mills; moreover, not support puppy mills whom are treating the

dogs inhumanely. By creating media posts or chains we can advocate to the public that when

they are looking for pets many can be from inhumane puppy mills and the puppy can have

diseases, so it is in the owner’s interest to stop inhumane puppy mills and start donating chains in

which important people of society can set example and donate as well.
Vazquez 6

Works Cited

Archer, Beau. An Advocate’s Guide to Stopping Puppy Mills.2016, p.26

The Horrible Hundred 2017: Uncovering U.S. Puppy Mills.


http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2017/05/horrible-hundred-2017-
uncovering-puppy-mills.html. Accessed 13 Apr. 2018.

You might also like