LA Times Investigation Article Link

September 24, 2024, Letters to the Editor: Stopping Unhealthy Puppies From Coming into Our State Isn’t Enough. If We Want Truly Satisfied Puppy Buyers, Californians Need to Produce More Puppies, and Our State and Local Governments Should Support this Effort

The LA Times recently published an investigation into the sale of unhealthy, abused and malnourished puppies brought into California from other States and sold under false pretenses to buyers here. The story provides many examples where immediately these puppies need extensive vet care and in many cases die an early death. More than 70% of the puppies transported into California come from the four States of Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma and Iowa, where the puppy mill business is concentrated. Out-of-state supply has been needed in the last few years to replace the supply from pet shops which was lost after California prohibited them from selling puppies.

I am a 35 year resident of Southern California and am also a “small hobby breeder” of Bulldogs with litters about once a year. My parents are both Bulldog breeders, and I have been around Bulldogs and their litters my entire life. I am past President of the Bulldog Club of America and currently their Delegate to the American Kennel Club. My family was AKC’s Non-Sporting Breeder of the Year in 2022, and we’ve sold many Bulldog puppies to a wide range of satisfied Bulldog puppy buyers everywhere.

There are certain identifiable “truths” that we should be able to accept from the LA Times story:

  • Demand for puppies in the State of California, particularly Southern California, is extremely high. Most dog owners brag that their dog is considered a member of the family. Covid’s stay-at-home orders, and the increase in working from home that followed, further increased already strong demand for puppies, especially for the more popular breeds.
  • In the search for puppies, the internet is as dangerous as it is powerful. The Times investigation tells many stories of deceit with fictitious names and addresses shown on misleading websites that entice a puppy buyer in California to reach out. These websites often misrepresent the source of the puppies that they are offering.
  • The incidence of repeat offenders in this area is overwhelming. The easy money in this “game” means that bad actors are never really forced to leave no matter the number of animal welfare convictions on their record. They can use fictitious names, sell through brokers or new accomplices, and the penalties that they receive barely slow them down.

With these truths in mind, my concern is that the Times investigation could lead State and local government officials to respond in ways that will make the problem worse and not better. Why? Government agencies that are responsible for animal welfare will most likely try to stop the supply of these unhealthy puppies. The LA Times reported that Governor Newsom’s office reacted to the story proclaiming “the state will take a ‘hard look’ at closing loopholes … to fix the issue.” As feared, the sole focus is on eliminating what everyone would agree is “bad supply.” These efforts, however, can be overbroad and reduce the supply of both unhealthy and perfectly normal healthy puppies alike. If our State and local governments focus their entire effort on a reduction of supply, the unintended consequence will be more California buyers are forced to look even deeper into the unsavory underground market. We won’t have happy California puppy buyers unless we do something to increase the SUPPLY of the puppies that these buyers want. To do that, we have to increase, not decrease, the breeding of dogs in the State of California. Consider this quote from the Times story in context:

“…the [USDA] licenses some 2,550 breeders, brokers and transporters authorized to have dogs. There are no federally licensed breeders in California.”

The most populous State in the country, needing literally millions of puppies over time, doesn’t have a single federally licensed commercial breeder. We have a very serious supply problem, and without identifying a new source of supply, actions to reduce it ultimately make our problem worse because buyers will resort to even more desperate actions to find a puppy. Eliminating bad supply alone won’t put healthy puppies in the homes of our residents. We need a bigger supply of good, healthy puppies, and our governments should devote at least as many resources to increasing the number of homebred puppies raised in California as they do to wiping out supply from nefarious breeders in other States. We should set a goal to triple the number of California households that occasionally breed and whelp puppies for sale. There are several actions that State and local officials could take to increase the number of available California-bred puppies. Teach some of our dog owners how to responsibly breed and sell puppies. It doesn’t require rich Central Valley farmland. Dog breeding as an industry can rise up from just about anywhere in the State. Offer tools that better match existing supply to demand. Make information readily available about breeders in this State and identify those out-of-State that should be avoided.
In the end will a few arrests of animal welfare repeat offenders get the job done, or do we want to also create opportunities for our own residents to keep all these puppy sales proceeds in our State by offering the loving, healthy puppies that our residents want? My plea is for State and local governments to take actions designed to increase the number of healthy puppies born in the State. Be bold and you’ll make California breeders the leading supplier for puppies in our State. Only then can we enjoy countless smiles from puppy buyers all over the State.