Banning the sale of puppies in retail pet stores, or banning retail pet stores entirely, are measures that aim to address concerns about the welfare and ethical treatment of breeding dogs and their puppies. But do they work?

The intention behind these bans is to discourage the support and perpetuation of puppy mills, where years of evidence shows most pet stores get their puppies. Puppy mills are known for their inhumane and often cruel treatment of breeding dogs and their puppies. The dogs in these facilities are typically kept in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, lacking proper socialization, veterinary care, and basic necessities.

This writer in no way supports puppy mill operators or the system that allows them to stay in business. Puppy mills are abhorrent. They are disgusting and inhumane, and they need to be dealt with. But banning the sale of puppies in retail pet stores will do nothing to improve the lives of breeding dogs and their puppies. Here’s what you need to know.

Supply of Puppy Mill Puppies:

Argument: Banning the sale of puppies in retail pet stores would eliminate a significant outlet for puppy mills to sell their puppies, thus reducing the supply of puppies from such unethical breeding facilities.

Counterargument: Retail bans take the misguided approach of targeting the smallest and most regulated source of acquiring puppies.

Every year, U.S. pet stores sell approximately 200,000 ⁽¹⁾ of the 2.6 million puppies born in puppy mills. ⁽²⁾ Banning the sale of puppies in retail stores reduces the supply available through that specific channel, but the supply is merely shifted to other channels that already dominate the market.

 

Demand for Puppy Mill Puppies:

Argument: Retail pet store bans ultimately reduce the demand for puppy mill puppies.

Counterargument: Retail pet store bans push the demand for puppies into the abyss of the unknown and unregulated.

Since 1996, the demand for dogs in the U.S. has never decreased. ⁽³⁾ In fact, we are now importing an estimated one million dogs from other countries to meet U.S. demand (1), demonstrating the ingenuity of the U.S. economy to provide consumers with what they desire.

 

Redirecting Consumer Demand:

Argument: By limiting the outlets for puppy mill puppies, there is an opportunity to redirect consumer demand toward reputable breeders. This, in turn, could contribute to raising overall standards in the breeding industry.

Counterargument: Educating consumers about reputable breeders and what to look for when buying a puppy from them redirects demand in that direction, not banning retail pet stores.

U.S. dog owners report they bought their dog(s) directly from breeders at a rate three times that of those buying from pet stores (2). So, consumers are already favoring breeders over retail pet stores, with no impact on standards in the breeding industry.

 

Promoting Adoption from Shelters:

Argument: Retail pet store bans could create an opportunity to promote adoption from shelters and rescue organizations. Encouraging adoption can help reduce the number of animals in need of homes and decrease euthanasia rates for shelter animals.

Counterargument: Banning retail pet stores doesn’t impact the animal welfare industry’s ability or effectiveness at promoting adoption.

The Humane Society of the United States and the ASPCA each spend tens of millions of dollars every year promoting adoption from shelters and rescues instead of buying pets from retail pet stores. Thousands of other organizations in the U.S. spend millions of dollars doing the same. These efforts have dramatically increased consumer awareness around puppy mills and pet stores, the benefits of adopting a dog from a shelter or rescue, and changed behavior as a result.

 

While initiatives to ban pet stores receive much attention and promise a “quick fix” to puppy mills, banning retail pet stores from selling puppies is not an effective strategy in the fight for better conditions for breeding dogs and their puppies.

The most effective approach to address the undeniably cruel treatment of dogs and puppies in puppy mills would likely involve a combination of measures, such as:

1. Educating Consumers: Raising awareness about the conditions in puppy mills and the benefits of adopting from shelters or buying from reputable breeders can help provide consumers with transparent and ethical options when acquiring a pet.
2. Regulating Breeding Practices: Stricter regulations and enforcement on breeding facilities can make it less profitable for puppy mills to operate thereby reducing the number of puppy mills conducting business in the U.S.
3. Promoting Adoption: Encouraging adoption from shelters and rescue organizations can help reduce the number of animals in need of homes and combat euthanasia rates.
4. Collaboration: Working together, animal welfare organizations, breeders, pet stores, and government agencies can develop comprehensive solutions to prioritize animal well-being and responsible breeding practices.

Ultimately, the goal is to create a system that prioritizes the well-being of animals, encourages responsible breeding practices, and educates consumers about the importance of supporting ethical sources when adding a new pet to their family.

#puppymills #banpetstores #petstore #animalwelfare #responsiblebreeding #dogs #dogslife

---

Sources:

(1)  WellBeing International, Pet Dog Supply and Demand in the United States

(2)  The Humane Society of the United States, Stopping Puppy Mills

(3)  American Veterinary Medical Association, 2017-2018 Edition, AVMA Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook