Talk:Puppy mill/Archive 1

Pejorative Article Name ?

A puppy mill is a horrible place where people breed any breeds of dogs unaware of issues of any kind to sell puppies to pet stores and horrible places like that.

"Puppy Mill" may or may not be a pejorative. That it seems to have been invented for mass media consumption is, defacto, evidence that it is not a neutral term.

A point that has been ignored by this group, as well as by those who condemn raising puppies "in unsanitary conditions and without proper regard for genetic ailments, socialization, etc.", is the fact that, in the United States at least, commercial dog breeding operations are licensed, regulated, inspected and policed by the USDA. The regulations (over 60 pages of detailed specifications covering exactly these issues) provide a clear guide. These regulations are enforced by periodic inspections by USDA's professional animal health inspectors. Violations will lead to loss of the kennel license and fines.

So, absent a clear definition within THIS or ANY group (how many brood females, specific genetic guidelines, specifications for kennel size, etc.) the use of he term "puppy mill" means whatever the user SAYS it means. I have never heard it used used in any but a pejorative sense. Mike Spies (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely it's incorrect to say that "puppy mill is a pejorative term (etc)"? After all, isn't "puppy mill" a specific term referring to the type of illegitimate operation that keeps animals in inappropriate, often cruel conditions and Boy|Exploding Boy]] 01:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

If you were breeding dogs and someone referred to your operation as a puppy mill, would you be pleased? I doubt it, because the phrase has the very negative connotations that you mention. Which is what pejorative is. Elf | Talk 15:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that little explanation. I'm quite aware what pejorative means. Are you? A pejorative is something that disparages or belittles; a puppy mill is a specific type of breeding operation. Thus, while one could not legitimately call a responsible, reputable breeding operation a "puppy mill," one could legitimately call an irresponsible, unreputable breeding operation where the dogs were confined in small cages in inhumane conditions and bred without heed for their well being or health a puppy mill, because that's exactly the type of operation the term describes. Do you follow? When you call something what it is it's not a pejorative. To give an example, saying that George Bush is a Nazi is pejorative; calling Hitler a Nazi is not. Exploding Boy 17:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Footnote 4 is an article from the UK Kennel Club. It is tagged to a sentence that says "many" pedigrees are faked. The article cited never says that--it does say that the pedigrees are of low quality. Could the footnote be moved to mid-sentence to be at the correct point? My overall feeling is that the article is so one-sided it puts the casual reader on guard from the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.243.9 (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But I believe that the Nazi Party called itself the Nazi Party; puppy mills don't call themselves puppy mills--only those who want to provide the negative connotation call them that. Elf | Talk 17:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the description is accurate, however, it's not a pejorative term. Exploding Boy 21:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

??I'm puzzled by what you think a pejorative term is, then. So I'm going to cite a dictionary, which says it is something "having negative connotations; esp: tending to disparage or belittle." It doesn't say "...having inaccurate negative connotations." =Compare "lazy" and "laid back". They could both be used to accurately describe the same behavior depending on your point of view, but the first is pejorative and the second isn't. Elf | Talk 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah well, I've rewritten the article to make it much more accurate. Exploding Boy 22:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Herein lies the dispute (in my eyes): Elf's complaint regards the unencyclopedic nature of a phrase coined in opposition to the object of the phrase. Elf perceives the article to be about the object of the phrase (the "mills" themselves) and, deeming their mill hood subjective in nature, seeks to remove the phrase, thereby eliminating bias. Exploding Boy perceives the article to be information about the phrase itself and everything that qualifies. The inclusion standard of "qualification" insures lack of description. Correct?

Bleedingcherub 09:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job. Hey, here's another term to debate--you added "who may also be breed or obedience champions " which is fine but something more like "breed or performance champions" might be better (thinking of herding, tracking, field, etc. ch's). I'm mentioning it because I'm not that fond of the term "performance", but that seems to be the general description for nonbreed titles used by dog people that I'm around, so it's engraved in my brain. Elf | Talk 22:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That's the word I was looking for. I could get it. Sounds good to me. Maybe we could wikilink to an appropriate article (any suggestions?). Exploding Boy 02:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

List of dog sports is the best we've got. Have always wanted to write an article ABOUT the concept, but I keep getting involved in discussions about pejorative and other minuscule stuff.  ;-) Elf | Talk 03:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I just discovered that people who keeps and show rats do rat agility! Who knew! Exploding Boy 03:40, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think your last paragraph is in desperate need of citation, "this is often untrue or is a difference in name only". Otherwise I do think it is a good article.

Then entire 3rd graph seems out of place. It's not very objective. Instead of saying what puppy mills do, it just says what "reputable breeders" do. I'd like to see it rewritten - or even deleted - but don't have the knowledge/gall to do so. Bderwest 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Animal health

I am thinking of adding a section on the skin of the west highland white terriers as I know that this is one thing which puppy farmers tend to allow to get into a very bad condition. Do you think that an example of a health problem faced by dogs which is very bad within the puppy farm population should be added to the page as an example for the readers to see.

• • I think that would be something helpful for ALL breeds that are common in mills. I recently adopted a mill dog that was rescued and would have found a listing of that sort very useful when I brought her home so I'd know what things to expect and/or watch for with her.

~~Kimberly

External links

I removed most of these as Wikipedia is not intended to be used as a link directory. I left the HS link as a reference however. -- Moondyne 04:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the "most of these" you are referring to? That is, specifically what links did you remove? Also, what criteria did you use in deciding to remove them from the page? Yes, Wikipedia is not intended to be used as a link directory; however, precisely because the "Puppy Mill" page is considered a disputed page it would seem that the more references to outside sources would be exactly what is needed to help the page no longer be a disputed page. -- 27 April 2007

Animal mills

Could we change the name from puppy mills to animal mill? There are "breeders" who mass-produce animals besides dogs in awful conditions: cats, birds, fish, rodents, etc. I recently found out that the pet store I got my quaker parrot from buys from mills, which is why he is permanently sick. bahamut0013 ( ♠♣§ ) 14:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a distinction between some animals? Say mice or rats for feed - or insects or small fish? They're not pets - so is it a difference?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.151.122 (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Puppy mill, though not very well defined by law, has coomon use, so I think using that term is OK provided that it is qualified (awful conditions, etc.). I have heard intensive bird production facilities refered to as "bird mills" although this is not so common. Another possibility for other pet animal production facilities is "factory" as in, animal factory, parrot factory, etc. Animals used for food, lab use, including fish, monkeys and others, are usually not refered to as "mills" but as "breeding facilities,""breeding colonies" or "hatcheries" in the case of fish. So, a puppy mill could be defined something like "an intensive breeding facility for companion dogs in which profit supercedes acceptible animal welfare." Bob98133 (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Perspective Bias

It seems to me the most effective use of the page would be explaining what the term refers to and its specific connotations rather than being a body of commentary on ethical/effective dog breeding. The information about what reputable breeders do seems irrelevant when not in more immediate juxtapositional contrast with the connotations of "puppy mill." The primary categorization of this as an animal rights issue rather than an industrial phenomenon seems to have overbroadened the scope of the article.

Bleedingcherub 05:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is amazingly bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.112.96 (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

October 2007 comment

The "puppy mill" page here is so one sided and not a true defintion, but rather a push of a politcal agenda, i am surprised it was even allowed to remain as it is. "Puppy Mill" is a derogatory name and has no true defintion. Most people understand it to mean "nasty, dirty, unlicensed , uncared for dogs". The correct defintion would be "sub-standard kennel" There are basic care guidelines usually called "Animal Welfare Act" which provide appropriate guidelines for feed, water, medical care and housing requirements for all canine companions. Failure to meet these guidelines result in sub standard care. Sadly, many people use the term "puppy mill" to mean any kennel that breeds dogs, no matter the quality of care. Breeding kennels come in a variety of sizes and types. The quantity or type of dogs raised is unimportant compared to the care level. Many people with one dog can neglect and abuse that dog far more than some kennels with 100. CaptBarbossa 14:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)CaptBarbossa

"According to the Humane Society of the United States, there are an estimated 10,000 licensed and unlicensed puppy mills in the United States, in total selling more than 2,000,000 puppies annually."

It appears that even if you are licensed by the US Department of Agriculture, submit to regular inspection, and abide by all regulations the Humane Society will still consider a business a "puppy-mill" if it is a "commercial" operation. This amorphous definition and unacceptable. It is borderline slanderous to imply that a breeder is a "puppy-mill" when they are licensed by the USDA, comply with regulations, and submit to regular inspections. This article should be retitled "Unlicensed Dog Breeders" and should specifically exclude licensed breeders who submit to inspections and comply with regulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:BB80:80D:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is totally biased with this article. When perusing your article "Niggers", there is an extensive history of the usage of that derogatory term, and many contradictory schools of thought are noted. There are also more up to date pictures. On the other hand, your references cited in the "Puppy Mill" article are MAINLY animal rights organizations or their publications, with the only pictures being old, out-dated ones that were probably also supplied by an animal rights group, which makes their validity questionable(these groups have been known to use pictures of kennels from other third world countries with articles on U.S. dog kennels). Oh, I see below that one of your editors has a sister with PETA. That makes the bias a little more understandable? Since when is such a small, opinionated, special interest faction of the general public considered the end-all source of reference on any subject? Especially the Humane Society of the United States, which is under investigation by the IRS, has lost RICCO lawsuits, and is at present being charged with fraud by the state of Oklahoma! Google that and you will find REPUTABLE sources to prove it! If indeed you are inclined to leave the content of your article as it is, you should at least research opposing thoughts, and in all fairness, include up to date pictures of commercial kennels such as these: http://realanimalwelfare.org/what-dog-breeding-kennels-loo…/ I again submit to you what SHOULD be the sum TOTAL of your article on "puppy Mills". [({ There is no such thing as a "puppy mill". "Puppy mill" is not a legally defined term. It is slang invented circa 1973, by the “animal rights” extremists, originally coined to denote an unlicensed place where dogs were raised in horrible, inhumane conditions. The extremists later decided to use the term to denigrate any and all dog breeders -- small or large, standard or substandard. It's the "N-word" of dog breeders. The phrase “puppy mill” has been promoted in the media by the animal “rights” movement, people who want to end all animal ownership. It is applied indiscriminately by this small minority faction to anyone who breeds dogs, and through canny use of the media, it has become a household term. The correct term for a place that breeds or raises dogs, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, who licenses and inspects them, is a kennel facility, or a commercial kennel. If you "Google" the term "puppy mill", you will find that most of the sites noted are animal rights oriented, or sites that are trying to rectify the damage done to dog breeders by the animal rights movement.})] Why would you want to use this? Because it is the TRUTH, something the animal rights organizations are quite unfamiliar with! PityPat247 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC) PityPat247 PityPat247 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 4:57 A.M. CST 6/3/2016

Disputed - Felony to photograph puppy mills

I have used search engines and state legislative searches for many variations trying to find the exact statutes widely cited making it a felony in several states to photograph or videotape a puppy mill. While references to these laws (or to failed attempts to pass such laws) abound, there are never references to specific legislation. State legislative searches have also failed to come up with anything more substantial than "trespassing on a farm", which has in fact been beefed up from previously minor to now major violations in several states. I believe the farm trespassing law has been twisted by advocates into the widely discussed ban on photography and video. I believe there is no actual law banning the surreptitious photography or video of a puppy mill. If the person is not trespassing there appears to be no actual law to prevent photography of a puppy mill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavesPlanet (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you must not have looked very hard, because here's what I found in 5 minutes on google: Raids on puppy mills subsequently took place in Kansas, where the state legislature, attempting to protect recalcitrant puppy mill operators by hampering investigators, enacted a law making it a felony to photograph a puppy mill facility. [1] The U.S. state of Kansas has enacted a law to protect puppy mill owners by making it a felony to photograph a puppy mills and facilities. [2] But animal rights lobbyist are concerned about other provisions of the bill, which would make it a felony to photograph an animal production facility without the express written consent of the owner [3] Raids on puppy mills subsequently took place in Kansas, where the state legislature, attempting to protect recalcitrant puppy mill operators by hampering investigators, enacted a law making it a felony to photograph a puppy mill facility. [4] Raul654 13:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, actually you are reinforcing the very point I claimed. As I claimed, there are a great many allusions to such a law on the web. There are not, however, any references to the exact statute. Even if you go to the Kansas legislative web site and search for a variety of likely terms I don't believe you will come away with the specific law in question. I think it's an urban legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavesPlanet (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No recent update, no citation of specific law, marking the item as dubious. DavesPlanet

Here's a bill in Florida that sought to criminalize photography on factory farms ([5]). It didn't pass. Apparently there have been recent (since the 2007 discussion above) efforts in other states to ban photography on factory farms. I'm not sure if any of them passed. Existing trespass statutes should cover this stuff (the Florida bill bans "entering onto a farm" and taking pictures, but it seems photos taken from a public roadway would be legal). I very much doubt that any efforts have been made to ban photos of puppy mills specifically, as opposed to factory farms more generally. Furthermore, I doubt any legislation uses the phrase "factory farm", or seek to ban photography only on farms above a certain size (although such laws are clearly favored and promoted by large "factory" farmers and not small scale farmers).Plantdrew (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Try researching your own website under AG-GAG. You will find that there are quite a few states that have signed bills into laws and that they have language forbidding undercover photography and recording in animal facilities. PityPat247 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)PityPat247 PityPat247 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 3:12 A.M CST 6/3/2016.

Generic definition?

The concept of a puppy mill still seems really generic. Either a list, or a set of parameters that show what is and is not a puppy mill would be really helpful. Unless the term is generic, by definition.

Some online definitions:

• Puppy mills are breeding facilities that produce purebred puppies in large numbers... The documented problems of puppy mills include over breeding, inbreeding, minimal veterinary care, poor quality food and shelter, lack of socialization with humans, overcrowded cages and the killing of unwanted animals.[6][7]
• The U.S. federal Animal Welfare Act does not define the term "puppy mill"[8]
• Connecticut state law does not define the term "puppy mill", but has the following requirements:[9]
  1. requires the licensing of certain breeding kennels,
  2. authorizes the agriculture commissioner to inspect kennels and order the correction of unsanitary and other unsatisfactory conditions,
  3. imposes fines and prison terms on noncompliant kennel owners and keepers, and
  4. prohibits the sale of puppies younger than eight weeks old.
• Puppy mills are facilities which are licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture that mass-produce puppies for pet stores throughout the country and to emerging foreign markets.[10]
• Breeders who sell over 25 animals annually to the wholesale pet market fall under this category.[11]

Something to chew on while I think about rewriting the introduction. :-P —Rob (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, after a little bit of research, no one seems to have a standard definition; however, it's pretty clear that the term is thrown about everywhere (at least in the U.S.). There is good prose regarding what traditional breeders do vs. alleged puppy mills (albeit in separate paragraphs). It's just a matter of addressing the uncertainty. Maybe there's a high-level definition and standard in multiple countries as to what constitutes a "puppy mill"? —Rob (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am not the only one. —Rob (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a clear definition: Not licensed by the US Department of Agriculture. Period. It is slanderous for the humane society to imply that a dealer which is licensed by the USDA, submits to inspections, and is in compliance with all regulations is a "puppy-mill". This article should be retitled to "Unlicensed Dog Breeders" and the definition should be any breeder who is not licensed or is out of compliance. No one who meets all USDA licensing, inspection, and regulatory requirements can be should be included. The Humane Society is a questionable source given that they raise millions of dollars to stop "puppy-mills" and therefore have a vested interested in exaggerating the scope of the issue.2601:B:BB80:80D:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup to do

I would also like to see the NPOV issues adressed. As someone stated previous, the categorization of this as an animal rights issue, especially in the lead is not neutral as this is also a legitimate industry. The article should be primarily a description and the controversy should stay within the controversy section. --Neon white (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it a legitimate industry under another name (dog breeding)? I think the use of puppy mill is, 90% to 95% of the time, a negative connotation associated with substandard dog breeding practices. Certainly, this is true in U.S. popular media. I did add the controversy section (and associated {{expand}} tag) because the use of "puppy mill" defined this way is often misused against legitimate dog breeders. —Rob (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oprah/media coverage

When I toned this section down, I wondered if it really fits in with the article. However, I think that Oprah is such a powerful force in American culture, that her showing these images and reporting about this is a valid inclusion. I agree with Lpangelrob that it does fit better in a "media" section. Bob98133 (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not denying that there are still non-compliant kennels in the U.S., it is no longer the norm. The filmed segments on the Oprah Winfrey show, depicting "puppy mills" were undercover videos shot and edited by animal rights extremists, and obviously filmed in substandard kennels quite a few years ago. Television shows like hers are sensationalism based, because it is a fact that sensationalism and scandal make money for television. So how does that make her a viable reference, a powerful force, possibly, but a reference? Encyclopedia Britannica and even World Book would roll over in their graves! PityPat247 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)User talk:PityPat247PityPat247 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 4:16 A.M CST 6/3/2016

Objectivity

The article should be more objective. Instead of referring to a "good" breeder (vs. a "bad" breeder?) the article should refer to common and socially accepted practices, compliant breeders vs. non-compliant breeders, or even responsible vs. irresponsible (although these last two terms may be too emotionally attached to the subject like "good" and "bad"). Nobody likes puppy mill operations but this is a place for objective information and not soap-boxing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcascio (talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, Lcascio. The only problem I see is getting any concensus on what compliant and non might mean since laws vary so much from place to place. Bob98133 (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I contributed to this article a few months ago and then got too busy with life stuff. The idea in section 2 is that "responsible" is a synonym for "good", not as an indicator of morality. That said, I personally feel that section 2 ("Differences in breeding conditions") adequately addresses common and socially accepted practices versus that conditions frequently encountered in puppy mills. —Rob (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Baboons are in charge of these?

Why is the Baboon picture for the animal rights box as big if not bigger than any images related to this article? Hell, the whole animal rights box is as big as the whole article. I'm all for the animal thing but that box shouldn't look like it is taking over the article.

Re-reading the thing it looks like that crap should be in its own article or in the external links section. Not eating the right side of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Euthanasia statistic without a source?

"The high numbers of euthanized animals (4 million dogs per year in U.S.) has led animal rights advocates to oppose the mass breeding of pet animals, a view that the profitable breeding industry opposes."

This euthanasia statistic needs a source or should be removed. The Wiki-link to "euthanized animals" shows a statistic of the American Humane Society that is more than double what is quoted here. Frosty73 (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Petitions to Stop Puppy Mills

I was surfing through facebook and i saw a petiton to stop petstores from selling puppies from puppy mills and i thought it would be a good idea to make the link for it available to everyone to try and help make a difference to these poor abused animals. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zia89 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is NOT a place to advocate for petitions. That is considered being biased to one side of an argument. Puppy Mills may be wrong, but Wikipedia is a NEUTRAL website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.221.207 (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Laws and Order

shouldn't there be something about this? Zia89 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Massive POV violations

Even if it is true that puppy mills are often done in substandard conditions, this article massivly fails the MORALIZE test. Just present the facts, this article reads more like a PETA page than wikipedia. The article is populated by sensationalist claims and greatly overlooks commercialized facilities that treat the animals with all due care. I will tag and try to work on this in the mean time.--Ipatrol (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I am a vegetarian who supports many of PETA's causes and has been a member of PETA. Still I believe strongly in the importance of the neutrality of the encylopedia.Tatterfly (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. For one, please learn how to cite references and edit - the article is a mess now with broken refs, boxes, etc. I'm tempted to revert it solely for that reason, but I'mnot looking ofr an edit war. If you had reviewed your edits before finalizing them, you couldn't have left it like this.

Second, this article is about a problematic type of dog breeder, not all large scale breeding operations. While I agree that the language could be toned down, the changes you are making removes any point to the article. There is some tendency to be POV since the name itself has negative connotations. Instead of these mass deletions, I would prefer that a controversy section be developed, or even better that those in favor of puppy mills or qualification to what determines a puppy mill, be referenced into the text. You have removed referenced material that has been there for some time without first obtaining concensus. This topic may be controversial, so it's best to discuss sweeping changes prior to making them. Bob98133 (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the refs, my mobile device has an inability to scroll down an edit box. Your concerns might be valid if you can find me an article on commercial dog breeding, then fine. However, no such article exists. This page is filled with anti-commercial dog breeding rehtoric backed up with unbashedly biased sources. I removed the referenced material because of this. Now I would like your help in bringing this article to a neutral stance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol (talk • contribs)

Commercial dog breeding would fit in as a section in dog breeding. Puppy mill refers to an unscrupulous dog breeder. It's like there isn't much favorable in the Son of a bitch article. That doesn't make it POV. If the commercial dog breeding references that aren't puppy mills can be qualified or removed fromthis article, I'm fine with that, but removing sourced info about what puppy mills are isn't the way to improve this. Please sign your talk posts. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to go over this in mind of your objections to see how it can be improved. Bob98133 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that in the sense of other articles, puppy mill is used to refer to mass commercial breeding operations, not just irresponsible ones. Therefore the article caracterizes all commercial breeding facilities as bad, which fails WP:BALANCE.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I just reread this article and it is quite clear that puppy mill refers to some large-scale puppy breeding operations. It is clearly stated in the 'Differences in breeding conditions' section what constitutes the difference between responsible breeders and some puppy mills. I could not find any point where the article claims that all large-scale puppy breeding operations are puppy mills. Perhaps you are falling into the animal rights trap of thinking that the name puppy mill automatically conotes a bad breeding facility rather than just a large one. Bob98133 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just read the opening paragraph, horribly bias! Why isn't this changed?--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! I just removed a sentance in the first paragraph about how all puppy mills are inhumane. 130.123.128.117 (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But if we're calling them "Puppy mills" aren't we calling them inhumane? I've never heard the term "Puppy mill" used positivly, or even neutraly. If we're going to talk about them being humane and acceptable, wouldn't they be called "puppy breeders" or something like that? However, I do agree with the scentence being taken away. Using words like "All" "None" or "Every" is usually a sign there's a baised opinion. As in, all puppy mills are bad. None of them take care of puppies. It doesn't work, right? 69.209.119.213 (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Jenny

It seems this article has been largly fixed, well done editors! --Ipatrol (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. This is still one of the most biased articles I've read on Wikipedia, especially the section talking about ethical breeders. I personally may not agree with poor breeding conditions of some breeders, but Wikipedia should not be dictating ethics. --Tpk5010 (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the text in question to moderate the POV. Neither source used the word "ethical" however both used the word "responsible". I have also removed the POV tag. Sorry, Tpk, but I don't understand why you say this article is so biased. Simply stating this offers no explanation and no clue about how to fix the article, if it needs fixing. Bob98133 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your edits clear up most of the issues I had with this. Thank you kindly. Tpk5010 ^{[Talk · Contribs]} 05:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding information regarding animal shelters

I have found research correlating the production of puppy mills with animal stores; I wanted to add a little more information on this topic. Also, the benefits of animal shelters and how you can cut down on the production of puppy mills by purchasing animals from shelters opposed to animal stores. I think this information will add a new dynamic to the page. (Ktchiap (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Canis Major Publications

I question the overuse of this reference in this article. A review of the people who run the website does not list any notable qualifications for the authors. As well, it states that it is a "newspaper for pet and show dog owners" which seems to indicate that it may have a bias which should be noted. Bob98133 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I would readily replace this source with a possibly less-biased source, but fairly intensive web research failed to turn up anything better regarding the possible origins of dog breeding as a commercial activity. —Rob (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Addition to web page

I recently added new information to this page. I did this because I think people should be aware of what other choices they have, if they chose not to contribute to the production of puppy mills. I just wanted people to be more knowledgeable to what other options are out there. Feel free to add more information! It the section titled Pro's of Animal Shelters(Ktchiap (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

O.K.

I just made the entrance a bit more netrual. Old Al (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed Photos

As pointed out earlier in this article (Talk page, Felony to photograph Puppy Mills), I removed the picture at the top of the article. The reason I did this was: it automatically puts the reader in a position of uncomfort, it adds to the bias of the article because it was posted by PETA and it's illegal!!! Also, in my opinion, and according to the photos source, PETA gave free unblocked use of it. An obvious attempt to not have the photo removed based soley on Wikpedia's Image Use Policy. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your explanation for the removal of this image in not satisfactory. Sorry, I didn't see this before I replaced the image. Who says it is a felony to photograph puppy mills? Who says this photo is illegal? If you believe this, perhaps you should contact your local law enforcement agency. I fail to understand your claim that allowing free use of this photo is somehow insidious. Please get your facts straight and perhaps discuss this prior to making sweeping changes? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bob98133 look at this talk page, someone linked a law source that says it is illegal to photograph puppy mills. I don't care what you say, I'll keep removing it. 71.192.221.207 (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please cite the refence that photographing a puppy mill is illegal in all 50 states and worldwide. It may be illegal in some jurisdictions, which could be cited, but it is not illegal per se. Bob98133 (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed section to Backyard breeding

Also biased. I looked at the reference and it was good, it came form the ASPCA website. But, it linked to an article on selective breeding. Which is a totally legal and humane form of creating pets. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is simply a defintion. It does not imply or state that bakyard breeders are puppy mills - it merely points out the difference. How is it biased? Bob98133 (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can split this down the middle, I removed the wikilink to the page selective breeding, because when I look at "For-profit breeding on a smaller scale is referred to as backyard breeding", I think: Backyard breeding, according to he ASPCA website, is wrong. Let me dissect this sentence: It's For-profit, like selective breeding. That is the ONLY similarity. BECAUSE backyard breeding is illegal, and selective breeding is NOT, then there is no reason to link it to selective breeding, WHICH IS A TOTALLY LEGAL AND HUMANE PRACTICE. Also, linking backyard breeding tarnishes the practice of selective breeding as an industry. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please cite a reference that backyard breeding is illegal or wrong. Bob98133 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My Response

HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE, BACKYARD BREEDING IS A SPECIFIC TERM ABOUT AN ILLEGAL PRACTICE, at least that is what this article says backyard breeding is. SELECTIVE BREEDING IS A GENERAL TERM, MORE THAN DOGS ARE SELECTIVELY BRED. PLANTS, COWS CATS and PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING IS SELECTIVELY BRED, EXCEPT HUMANS.

OMFG your dumb as shit. Look at the reference next to the sentence: "For-profit breeding on a smaller scale is referred to as backyard breeding". That is your cite source, the source is ASPCA, I already explained it to you artard. Here is the direct ref: a b ASPCA (2007). "ASPCA: Fight Animal Cruelty: Cruelty Glossary". http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cruelty_crueltyglossary. Retrieved on 2007-12-13.

Proof for the removal of PHOTO

Then you must not have looked very hard, because here's what I found in 5 minutes on google: Raids on puppy mills subsequently took place in Kansas, where the state legislature, attempting to protect recalcitrant puppy mill operators by hampering investigators, enacted a law making it a felony to photograph a puppy mill facility. [12] The U.S. state of Kansas has enacted a law to protect puppy mill owners by making it a felony to photograph a puppy mills and facilities. [13] But animal rights lobbyist are concerned about other provisions of the bill, which would make it a felony to photograph an animal production facility without the express written consent of the owner [14] Raids on puppy mills subsequently took place in Kansas, where the state legislature, attempting to protect recalcitrant puppy mill operators by hampering investigators, enacted a law making it a felony to photograph a puppy mill facility. [15] Raul654 13:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

--Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see your CAPS LOCK got unstuck. You're just wrong. Photo wasn't taken in Kansas. It is not illegal to photograph a puppy mill. {hoto has all proper licneses to be used on Wiki. Backyard breeding does not mean something illegal. Read the wikilink. Perhaps your god contracts "you are" to "your" but if so, I'd consider finding a literate god.Bob98133 (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this in forums everywhere. When you know you're beaten, you poke at small things like spelling "your" and "you're" wrong.. Also, you have some balls to poke fun at my god, so that is just totally wrong and f**cked up. Also, here is a taste of your own medicine: you spelled "licenses" wrong and "photo". Here is how you spelled it "licneses" and "hoto".....KELSO BURN!!!. Fix the wording on the article then to make it not look like this article defines backyard breeding as illegal. Because my own sister, who is a member of PETA, said that the wording makes it look like backyard breeding is illegal. From MGS: Phision Mailed to you kind sir. GOOD DAY, KIND SIR!!! LOL!!! --Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you two start by acting like mature adults and be civil? A stupid image is no reason to start a flamewar. Stop playing wiki-tug-of-war and calmly discuss the issue.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I already tried Ipatrol, and he bashed my god and spelling. So, I calmly (no caps) Burnt him to get him off my back. I tried to talk civil (look at beginning of chat), but he was rude back and had no backup to his claims of reverting what I did, but I had plenty of evidence (as you can see). So, I hope you answer this Ipatrol and tell ME what I should do. Thanks --Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor Spelling Corrections

There were a number of spelling errors in the second paragraph of this article (Puppy mill). I had corrected those before I saw that this was a disputed article. All of the errors were contained in the paragraph starting with "Puppy mills are cruel...". Only minor spelling errors were corrected, no changes to context.

Also proof-read the rest of the article. The paragraph that I edited does not appear to have been authored the same as the rest of the article. That one paragraph seems biased compared to the rest of the article.

Robertcant (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed that ph. It would have been OK for you to remove it since it was clearly opinion and didn't belong in the lede. Also, when I tried the reference I got a 404 - I think it may have been a membership site. Bob98133 (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)