Breeders Dump Dogs in Reaction to Wisconsin’s Puppy Mill Law

Life With Dogs is reader-supported. We may earn a small commission through products purchased using links on this page.

One week before a new law takes effect regulating the number of dogs they are allowed to possess, breeders in Wisconsin are dumping dogs in record numbers – setting them loose to fend for themselves.

According to the new law, breeders who sell 25 or more dogs a year from more than three litters must apply for a license, and it’s quickly becoming apparent that a large number of them are not willing to subject to regulation as area shelters buckle under the weight of incoming abandoned purebreds. NBC15 reports on Wisconsin’s growing dog dumping epidemic.

128 thoughts on “Breeders Dump Dogs in Reaction to Wisconsin’s Puppy Mill Law”

  1. 25 dogs a year from three litters! Breeders should be licensed and inspected if they sell one litter a year.

    Reply
    • I completely agree! And I wish there was a harder crack-down, but it is something! And lets hope that it helps pave the way for more laws like it!!

      Reply
    • I recognize and appreciate your concern about the inexcusable actions of puppy mill breeders but these people in no way represent nor should they be compared to responsible breeders.

      Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. The idea is to support good caring responsible breeders and eliminate puppy mill breeders who have no concern for the welfare of their dogs.

      Going from one extreme of no regulation to the other extreme of cracking down just to blindly castigate with no purpose but to penalize any and all breeders is not the solution either. The priority of the legislation should be to protect dogs from ruthless individuals who are only in it for the money. This does not suggest it should be open hunting season on all breeders. There are caring, conscientious breeders who love their dogs and provide excellent care. These breeders should not shouldering punishment meant for the cruel transgressions of ruthless breeders.

      Reply
      • Excuse me, am I right in reading that those that breed more than three litters a year should be licensed…….where is the punishment in that for responsible breeders!!!!!

        Reply
        • You need to read ALL threads and not respond to just a single comment.

          I was not suggesting that there should not be any license for having a kennel or breeding. What I am suggesting is that we need to be cautious not to begin regulating everyone for everything.

          There has to be balance in all legislation and there has to be a baseline for what a community or county decide as a whole, is the number they feel warrants an application for licensing in order to prevent demonizing all breeders regardless of that number.

          Reply
          • Oh please, I get so sick of so called ‘responsible breeders” fighting regulation. If you have nothing to hide then what are you afraid of?

        • Jennifer, it has to do with the over reaching authority of the law. No one is saying that breeders shouldn’t be required to apply for a kennel license or that they shouldn’t work toward a higher standard. But what you are suggesting is that breeders should be subjected to any and all intrusions into their lives that the legislatures dream up.

          The mentality that “If you have nothing to hide then what are you afraid of?” does not give the government an open ended license to abuse anyone’s personal rights.

          That is like saying, “if you are a law abiding citizen then you have no reason to object to police inspections of your home as a matter of routine when ever they feel the need, regardless of whether they have a warrant or a complaint or reasonable cause.”

          The point is, you can’t just subject people to an invasion of privacy just because they are not hiding anything. Most kennel licenses require inspections and responsible breeders are more than willing to abide by those requirements. What they are probably objecting to, meaning the breeders, is radical laws that are unreasonable and open the door for further restrictions.

          You clearly have disdain for all breeders and have lost the ability or desire to differentiate between good breeders and bad. As evidenced by your sarcasm you are not objective enough to even see why even you should be concerned with extreme laws. That is apparently, until it affects you directly. But one thing you can be sure of, and that is, once the extreme becomes precedent it opens the door for more unreasonable legislation. So, what will be next? Perhaps your ability to own a single dog or inspections of your home for owning that one dog or …. what?

          I want to be clear here. I am completely supportive of the people in those states who are working toward well-written legislation that will end the practice of puppy mills. The treatment of puppy mill breeding dogs and the callous way puppies are mass-produced is disgusting and heartless. I admit freely that I don’t live in the states currently struggling to eliminate puppy mills so I don’t know the exact wording of the final laws drafted. What concerns me, is the direct attack on anyone that breeds dogs as though they are all to blame for the nations current shelter problem. Clearly, many posting here want to demonize all breeders as well as blame them for the current numbers of shelter dogs living and dying in our nations shelters and rescues. What amazes me is that no one has mentioned the responsibility of the individual owners who once owned those many dogs and dumped them at the shelters. Instead it is the fault of ALL breeders. This mentality of lumping all individuals into one group, in other words, guilt by association, is the same reason why no one vehemently objected to the unjust BSL legislation that was fostered by blind acceptance, when drafted by many city and county governments. Once again, an example of extreme legislation that was not based on science or statistical information but instead on hysteria and emotion. THAT, is what breeders are afraid of.

          Reply
          • Oooh.. so you’re against justice and laws when they apply to you? Because quite frankly, at the risk of looking like a jerk, that’s basically what you’re saying! You just don’t want regulation on principle, and not because breeders have something to hide? Oh, please! So called “RESPONSIBLE BREEDERS” should welcome regulation and inspection!! To show that they are doing their part to be conscentious and protect their animals. No butts about it. How dare you support these disgusting people! There will always be a place for purebred dogs, and breeders of all kinds. But this law should be meant to weed out the bad ones.I can’t see why you would be so adamant to defend the “responsible breeders” unless you yourself are a breeder, and need to up your standards!

          • No Jess D., you are right, you just might be “risking looking like a jerk” because that is not what I said. In fact, I would venture to say that you have made a huge leap off a cliff. Your response makes me think that you didn’t even read what was written.

            You comment, “you’re against justice and laws when they apply to you.” First of all, just to clarify, I am not a puppy mill breeder so I can safely say, these laws, or as you suggest, justice, do not apply to me. I am not sure where you got that idea because it wasn’t stated in my post. In addition, apparently you just glossed over my comment “No one is saying that breeders shouldn’t be required to apply for a kennel license or that they shouldn’t work toward a higher standard.” I guess I wrote this assuming it was clear so, for the sake of transparency, I will state it another way. But, bear with me, because I am going to use what appears to be an unattainable word to describe the difference between breeders. I do believe that “responsible breeders” should have a kennel license, provide comfortable housing and necessary exercise and when needed veterinary care for health issues that are above and beyond annual visits. For some reason many people don’t want this group to exist in any form so their ability to see that responsible breeders do exist and do not have any resemblance to puppy mill breeders is completely obstructed.

            What baffles me is your statement, “There will always be a place for purebred dogs, and breeders of all kinds…..I can’t see why you would be so adamant to defend the “responsible breeders…” You have managed to take two apposing positions in just two sentences. How can you gladly accept the presences of purebred dogs, which I assume from your acceptance are those produced by responsible breeders other than puppy mills, while attacking me for defending those responsible breeders? I am confused by your position.

            In your excitement to attack me you must have skipped my last paragraph altogether. So let me just give you a synopsis of the gist of that paragraph. The primary function of dog breeding legislation should protect animals against unethical breeding and abuse, while concurrently protecting the rights of “responsible breeders,” sorry, there is that hot button word again. “Responsible breeders” provide exemplary care of their dogs and I am quite sure have done so for some time without any government intervention. Despite the many objections to the contrary, “responsible breeders” genuinely love their dogs and provide better care than most pet owners.

            My whole position was to guard against drafting legislation, whose only aim is to stop any and all dog breeding even by those who provide exceptional care, and that may also punish the caring breeders whose very philosophy about their dogs is the high standard that the legislation imposed on puppy mill breeders is attempting to achieve.

          • You’re totally right.

            In my “excitement to attack you” I guess I forgot that you sound like a hypocrite and I respectfully (if there’s any of that left) bow out of this non-existent argument.

            Thanks.

          • Jess D, maybe someday you will find your way out of the self righteous tirades you spew and realize that in order to make the changes needed to stop cruel puppy mill breeding is to recognize and work with ethical breeders.

            Fortunately, the animal welfare advocates “really” working for change know that. To quote Michael Fry of Animal Ark, a major member of the no-kill shelter movement and a very active advocate for passing productive legislation in his state of Minnesota, recognized this fact, “The legislative process is all about consensus-building. That is the lesson animal welfare advocates SHOULD have learned over the last several years. Not only have they not learned the lesson, some factions within the animal welfare community seem stubbornly committed to casting aside the most important partners (referring to Minnesota’s Purebred Dog Breeder’s Association) in the effort to pass a puppy mill law. And, in so doing, they not only hand over the arguments being used by their opposition, they also prove some of the arguments true.”

            Change comes from building strong alliances and being open minded and not from smugly dispensing moralistic intolerance of the opinions and behavior of others.

    • What about people who breed a beloved pet just to get a puppy from that pet, those who have one litter period?

      Reply
      • I personally don’t have a huge problem with that, as long as that breeder knows where all his/her the dogs went (meets new parents and vets them out and NEVER ships a dog sight unseen) and does not sell for profit.

        Reply
  2. Goes to show they never cared for the animals …only the money for theit greedy asses ! The dogs are better off

    Reply
  3. Unfortunately the bad breeders are the one’s who get noticed and ruin the reputaion of breeders of good quality dogs.

    Reply

Leave a Comment