Upcoming Paper On Puppy Mills

[corvus]

Here's a report on an upcoming paper looking at behavioural problems in dogs from puppy mills compared to dogs not from puppy mills.

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/parenting-family/pets/dogs/story/2011-10-11/Puppy-mills-leave-lasting-emotional-scars-study-finds/50722874/1

The psychological damage suffered by dogs living in puppy mills is profound and exists long after they've been rescued, a new study shows.

"This study gives us strong evidence that the dogs kept in these large-scale breeding facilities don't just suffer while they're confined there, but carry the emotional scars out with them for years, even when they're placed in loving homes," says Frank McMillan of Best Friends Animal Society, who conducted the research with James Serpell and Deborah Duffy of the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine. It will be published in an upcoming issue of Applied Animal Behavior Science.

Anecdotal evidence has long suggested that lacking normal human contact and living with the pain and discomfort that are systemic in puppy mills leave these dogs with post-trauma-like behaviors. This is the first large study comparing mill survivors to dogs raised in homes.

The study compared owner-reported psychological and behavioral characteristics of 1,169 former breeding dogs recovered from puppy mills with those of 332 pet dogs without the mill history.

The dogs from puppy mills showed significantly elevated levels of fears and phobias, compulsive and repetitive behaviors, and heightened sensitivity to being touched.

"The most prominent difference was in the level of fear," says McMillan. "Compared to normal pet dogs, the chance of scoring in the highest ranges for fear was six to eight times higher in the recovered puppy-mill dogs."

The behavioral differences within that group existed whether they came from filthy, inhumane puppy farms or from cleaner, law-abiding large commercial breeding operations that have sought to separate themselves from the more unsavory breeders, McMillan says.

That fits with the experience of National Mill Dog Rescue in Peyton, Colo., which has rescued nearly 5,300 mill dogs in four years. "What may be more pleasing to the eye does not necessarily positively impact their emotional state," says Theresa Strader, the group's founder.

In either case, the animals are confined with little or no interaction with humans or experiences outside their confines. "The ones that have never been positively handled are in the worst shape psychologically," Strader says.

Legislative efforts to improve the lot of mill dogs have focused on mandating clean water, regular food, larger cages and regular veterinary care, and all are vital, McMillan says. This study "offers a different perspective on the problem."

The former mill dogs had been in their new homes an average of two years, he says. Many owners saw "dramatic improvement over time," but some dogs continued to struggle.

Yet in a follow-up questionnaire that was not part of the published study, 95% said they would adopt another puppy-mill rescue. "When you break through with a mill dog," says Strader, "the bond is as deep as a bond can get."

Edited October 15, 2011 by corvus

[corvus]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159111003005

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Very interesting. Not really a surprise to me but there are some members of this forum who really need to read and digest this information as they can see nothing wrong with large commercial facilities churning out puppies and think puppy farms are fairy tales invented by animal liberationists (for what purpose I haven't worked out but anyhow, that's what they think). Perhaps I should send them a pm ....

[Scarlet]

YES it makes so much sense. And it's great to have some qualitative data on hand. Thanks.

If they were stock animals it wouldn't really matter (outcome wise) but people are buying these pups to bring into their families; for their children to play with.

Personally I can see the difference with pups of mine that I have socalised before being fully immunised and pups I have kept at home till around 16 weeks.

[schnauzer]

Most of the dogs we have rescued have recovered very well - I choose their new homes with great care and only rehome to experienced breed/rehab people. My own girl still has fear issues, occasional anxiety and is timid. Considering how extreme she was when rescued (unrehomeable fear biter), she has done remarkably well. Rehoming to a home with a very stable dog enhances recovery and stability IMO.

People who think it is OK to keep dogs in commercial breeding kennels confined their entire lives, with no social interaction, little human contact and no enrichment are totally delusional.

[mita]

Thanks for posting this, Corvus.

Yes, there's been anecdotal evidence about this issue for a long time. RSPCA Qld commented some years back that their experience was that the psychological & social impacts on puppy-'farmed' dogs could be life-long & crippling.

And there's been studies which have shown that the development of aggression in dogs can begin with lack of socialization in the mother dogs. Yet, socialisation of mother dogs doesn't get any attention in 'puppy-farming'-type facilities. Which would back up what schnauzer's said.

So it's good to see this kind of robustly arrived at data becoming available. It emphasizes how raising puppies to be companion dogs can only be achieved within a welfare model... that puts a high premium on socialisation of resident dogs and puppies. As well as applying technical knowledge in making decisions on what dogs to breed with, for health & temperament outcomes.

I agree with dogmad that there's currently enough information on what constitutes dog welfare to question large-scale puppy-producing establishments. And also how any puppies/dogs are bred and raised.

Edited October 14, 2011 by mita

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

I'm still awaiting Steve's and Sandgrubber's appearance as they have much to say on this issue but also on the fact that there's nothing wrong with "well run commercial enterprises" or "back to back breeding". Issues that I state here and now, I have always been vehemently against. None of the pages upon pages of blurb that they wrote will change my mind. It is simply not the way for a companion animal to survive and I mean survive for it is not living.

I have an ex puppy farm dog myself, it's not as if I have no experience - I may not (and will never be) a breeder but have been working with dogs and many have been damaged, for over 10 years.

Edited October 14, 2011 by dogmad

[Steve]

I'm still awaiting Steve's and Sandgrubber's appearance as they have much to say on this issue but also on the fact that there's nothing wrong with "well run commercial enterprises" or "back to back breeding". Issues that I state here and now, I have always been vehemently against. None of the pages upon pages of blurb that they wrote will change my mind. It is simply not the way for a companion animal to survive and I mean survive for it is not living.

I have an ex puppy farm dog myself, it's not as if I have no experience - I may not (and will never be) a breeder but have been working with dogs and many have been damaged, for over 10 years.

I dont think many people who are aware of what a puppy mill is will be surprised - it seems to only back up what we all know - .that keeping dogs in rotten conditions with littel human conatct is not conducive to them simply being able to be taken out and living happily ever after with out some work.

Did it say in the report that dogs from well run commercial enterprises were included in their research or was the study done soley on dogs from puppy mills? Did the study state that back to back breeding of healthy dogs was something which has affected their long term general health?

By the way for clarity - I did not say that I thought collectively there was nothing wrong with well run commercial enterprises.In fact I said if I had my way they would not exist and that I felt because the main motivation of the breeder being to make a profit placed the dogs in a higher at risk situation. I did not say that I objected to anyone protesting commercial breeding - however I did say that if we are to protest puppy mills we should be aware of what the definition and that we are all protesting the same thing.

Some people clearly read puppy mill or puppy farm and see commercial enterprise and have no intent to judge on how people keep their dogs but rather to judge them on their motivation for breeding dogs.

So not everyone is protesting the same thing when we protest against puppy farms.

If we are going to judge people on their motivation rather than how they keep their dogs there are two major problems in that and its why I am not protesting against commercial breeders but I do protest about puppy farmers.

One is that if we can stop someone breeding because of why they breed dogs rather than how then we can decide anyone's motivation is not good. Many people happen to believe that breeding dogs for the show ring is a terrible motivation and breeders who do so need to be stopped because they are cruel other believe that if people dont show their dogs but breed their dogs have a terrible motivation. How peopel keep their dogs has to be the focus rather than why they bred them or no one will be left who can breed dogs because no matter which group you belong to someone thinks your motivation sucks.

The other is that ANYONE no matter how many they own or breed - no matter what their primary motivation is who keep dogs in rotten conditions without covering their needs needs to be shut down, charged and locked up and when we spend so much energy on targeting one group the ones I see who tell me they dont breed commercially are free to do what ever they want behind closed doors because people assume that because they SAY they are not breeding commercially - that all is well.

Again dog mad I didnt make up the science regarding back to back litters and people who are much better educated and qualified than me have spread this terrible truth.

You may think that its a persons role to tell lies about facts relating to canine reproduction in case someone breeds a bitch back to back who shouldnt but I happen to think we should be able to have access to the science and discuss what is best for our dogs dependednt on its breed and circumstances without being beaten up because we happen to say what the science tells us.

So in regards to this report - its good and shows a correlation between dogs which are kept where the basic needs are not addressed - and these issues - but it is not any evidence that someone who breeds dogs in Australia commercially is necessarily guilty of doing that. Someone who owns a puppy farm - a place that breeds dogs in sub standard conditions regardless of their motivation needs to be shut down and the report demonstrates the need for all people who own dogs to be aware of the consequences if they dont address the needs of the dogs.

Same old same old and I know you wont understand what Im trying to say or that we are on the same side. For you puppy mill equals a commercial breeder for me it equals anyone who keeps their dogs in rotten conditions and who doesnt look after their basic social and welfare needs.

The report told me I was right in what I believed - the report told you the same thing - its just that we dont agree on what a puppy mill is. Until we all do - no one really knows what it is anyone else is fighting against. You see commercial kennels others see kennels where dogs are kept for the show ring, others see lounge rooms stacked with crates with dead dogs walking over each other and shit 6 inches deep where people dont have making a profit as their motivation.

. I am against illegal action and sensationalist animal rights propoganda directed at anyone who applies for a Development application to breed dogs commercially - not because I think people should breed dogs commercially but because I want everyone who breeds dogs out in the open where we can see these things are being addressed - when you go after people who are doing the right thing by applying for a DA to breed dogs all you do is chase off anyone who may have applied for a DA and that is counter productive to the goal. Knowing who breeds dogs and ensuring no one regardless of their motivation or how many they breed is doing anything which is not conducive to them being happy and healthy.

[BJean]

I'm still awaiting Steve's and Sandgrubber's appearance as they have much to say on this issue but also on the fact that there's nothing wrong with "well run commercial enterprises" or "back to back breeding". Issues that I state here and now, I have always been vehemently against. None of the pages upon pages of blurb that they wrote will change my mind. It is simply not the way for a companion animal to survive and I mean survive for it is not living.

I have an ex puppy farm dog myself, it's not as if I have no experience - I may not (and will never be) a breeder but have been working with dogs and many have been damaged, for over 10 years.

It all depends on how you define well run commercial enterprise.

And as always I have no idea about how the little dogs close to the ground work,

only my dogs.

I do know that some of the best breeders keep many of my dogs, some in pens/cages and on chains -

and my dogs aren't the type of dog you can mistreat or not handle, and then expect to get anywhere near the dogs let alone their puppies.

On back to back breedings, cant see what is wrong with these either, if my dogs have been having litters long before the cows came home in this country

then I hardly see why I should listen to anyone about what is 'best practise',

other than those who know and have experience.

The biggest problem with 'good intention' across the board standards, is that it is presented as 'best practise' when it is not. You want to individualise the dog, yet your result is to institutionalise.

This is the current status quo in Vic.

Edited October 15, 2011 by lilli

[sandgrubber]

I'm still awaiting Steve's and Sandgrubber's appearance as they have much to say on this issue but also on the fact that there's nothing wrong with "well run commercial enterprises" or "back to back breeding". Issues that I state here and now, I have always been vehemently against. None of the pages upon pages of blurb that they wrote will change my mind. It is simply not the way for a companion animal to survive and I mean survive for it is not living.

I have an ex puppy farm dog myself, it's not as if I have no experience - I may not (and will never be) a breeder but have been working with dogs and many have been damaged, for over 10 years.

The study covered: " Dogs. . . routinely housed for their entire reproductive lives in cages or runs, and provided with minimal to no positive human interaction or other forms of environmental enrichment". I would not consider such facilities "well run" . . . I would consider them cruel. I also consider it cruel to keep a single dog confined in a back yard with minimal to no positive human interaction or environmental enrichment. Neither size, nor commercial viability is the deciding factor. It's whether the dog is allowed social interaction, stimulation, adequate food and shelter, etc. Many dogs delight in social interaction with other dogs, and a large kennel that gives dogs opportunity to spend a lot of time out of doors in social groups is often a great place from a dog's perspective.

Some small scale breeders are every bit as neglectful of their dogs as "commercial" breeders. In my experience, well-cared for retired breeding dogs go right into a family setting with few adjustment problems . . . mine always slept on the bed and were allowed on the sofa, so most of the adjustment they had to do was in the form of learning new boundaries.

Large kennels are nothing new and have played a major role in the establishment of some breeds. . . Sandringham kennels was established by King Edward VII in 1879 to house 100 dogs . . . pretty big I'd say . . . but not a puppy farm . . . a large fraction of the dogs housed there had / have extensive field training and far more opportunity to do dog things than most of our dogs will ever have. Many 'commercial' Lab breeders in the US make as much money off 'starting' pups as they do breeding them . . . and quite a few hunters prefer to pay three or more thousand dollars extra to get a started pup in part because they like the effects of a dog who gets lots of gentle early training and socialisation and recognise that it's hard for a family where everyone works 9 to 5 is not the best environment for a young pup. The largest breeder I worked with when I was in Australia took all her dogs (except young pups, bitches in season, etc.) for a long tromp across fields every day, and gave them a few hours in small groups in a large grassed exposure. It was a joy to watch and the dogs were beautifully adjusted.

There is a real danger of society making rules based on size, rather than paying attention to how dogs are cared for. It won't get rid of neglect, and it will cause problems for some people who have devoted their lives to bettering a breed.

Back to back breeding is a separate issue . . . I don't have access to veterinary journals at this point in my life . . . but when I did, I could not find any evidence that it was physiologically harmful. I'd imagine someone else can find the references on this.. . .the subject is well worked on DOL and no one seems to change their positions. I have never bred more than two litters in 18 months and never had more than 5 litters from one bitch. So I can't speak from personal experience. But the reproductive specialist vets I know tell me there's not a problem. I am quite happy to poo-pooh the notion of 'poor girl' 'forced' to have puppies. My girls always got very jealous of whoever had pups. Most of them would get milk and work their way into the whelping box to be with the pups when one of the other girls had pups. (I'm down to 2 girls now, one spayed, the other not yet bred . . . so I write in past tense).

Edited October 15, 2011 by sandgrubber

[mita]

[

Some small scale breeders are every bit as neglectful of their dogs as "commercial" breeders. In my experience, well-cared for retired breeding dogs go right into a family setting with few adjustment problems . . . mine always slept on the bed and were allowed on the sofa, so most of the adjustment they had to do was in the form of learning new boundaries. ...

There is a real danger of society making rules based on size, rather than paying attention to how dogs are cared for. It won't get rid of neglect, and it will cause problems for some people who have devoted their lives to bettering a breed.

A fair point in that 'puppy farming' is a technique of breeding dogs for profit...AND not covering the full list of welfare requirements which now, based on good science, must also include socialisation.

Obviously, the risk increases with numbers of dogs held. Because in order to meet all those welfare needs, there needs to be time on task by humans in meeting those needs. But it's a fair point that even a backyard breeder with a handful of dogs can be equally as negligent in attending to those needs. It's a case of greater risk with increased size & greater number of poorly bred and socialised dogs produced.

Which is why I prefer to describe the behaviour, rather than the place. What's needed is a reasonable size of an establishment, based on some assessment of human time that can meet the full gamut of welfare needs. Attention needs to go towards working out a formula.

There already exists a framework for breeding in which the full gamut of welfare needs has been met.....& most of all, socialisation has been included.

The UQ research into registered & unregistered breeders in Qld, came out with strong results for registered breeders as tending to socialise their dogs better & to control their numbers of litters more. (Doesn't mean all, means statistically significant number of registered breeders, do)

That kind of research should be unpicked to see what already exists & which serves dogs' welfare best.

What is critical is that unregistered breeders were at greater risk for not stepping up to the plate. Yet, the typcial 'puppy farming' set up.....& the large commercial establishment....are usually run by unregistered breeders.

One look at the ethical guidelines set down by Dogs Qld, would indicate that, at least, the registered breeders have gold standard ideals in place. The 'puppy farming' places & the large commercial establishments have nothing to match this.

No wonder that the research found there were a goodly number of registered breeders already following these guidelines & doing a good job re dog welfare. As well as valuing & developing their pure breeds.

Edited October 15, 2011 by mita

[RubyBlue]

YES it makes so much sense. And it's great to have some qualitative data on hand. Thanks.

If they were stock animals it wouldn't really matter (outcome wise) but people are buying these pups to bring into their families; for their children to play with.

Personally I can see the difference with pups of mine that I have socalised before being fully immunised and pups I have kept at home till around 16 weeks.

The paper was comparing rehomed adult breeding dogs vs pets which have been socialised since puppyhood. I would say that this is a case of nurture and a puppyfarm puppy brought up as a pet would be a different situation.

[westiemum]

Hi All,

I'm with schnauzer . Having had a number of rescues through my home, this study confirms my small scale experience. My 12 year old westie who has been out of the dog factory (Freedom Kennels) for 5 years, while now generally well adjusted, has NEVER got over his fear of big dogs. Similarly, my younger ex dog factory westie thought to be about 6 now (but who really knows), is making slow progress. He is a brave little alert barker at home and incredibly timid ball of fear outside home who sits on my foot and won't leave my side. This is in contrast to my registered breeder girl who if anythign is a little over confident :rolleyes: (hussie that she is )

The psychological damage in my two westies is severe and of very long-standing. It doesn't seem to matter how hard I try to rehab these boys, their fear behaviours remain .

[sandgrubber]

I agree with mita. It's 10 times worse to neglect 100 dogs as to neglect 10 dogs. Large and neglectful establishments do a lot of harm. I don't see anyone sticking up for them. But I'm more than happy to stick up for someone who has devoted their life to breeding and raising quality dogs and finds (usually after decades of breeding / showing / training on a hobby basis) they can make a living out of producing dogs who fit into some social role. It can be an honorable and rewarding profession . . . unlikely to be lucrative . . . but rewarding.

[OSoSwift]

Has there been any studies on puppies bought from puppy farm and then raised as a family pet? I am interested to see what long term effects that has on a dog and their ability to fit into a normal family life.

[mita]

I agree with mita. It's 10 times worse to neglect 100 dogs as to neglect 10 dogs. Large and neglectful establishments do a lot of harm. I don't see anyone sticking up for them. But I'm more than happy to stick up for someone who has devoted their life to breeding and raising quality dogs and finds (usually after decades of breeding / showing / training on a hobby basis) they can make a living out of producing dogs who fit into some social role. It can be an honorable and rewarding profession . . . unlikely to be lucrative . . . but rewarding.

Well said. And every bit of current science & people's actual experience would back what you've said.

This is what we should be promoting to the pet public.

[sandgrubber]

p.s. Here's an example of the sort of kennel I want to make sure doesn't get hit by well meaning people who are against 'commercial' dog enterprises. Between breeding, training, boarding, and stud fees, these guys probably make a profit. . . . and work around the clock I'd say good on 'em. They're producing great dogs. They deserve it

http://www.topdogretrievers.com/Labrador-Retriever-puppy-ca.html

[mita]

Has there been any studies on puppies bought from puppy farm and then raised as a family pet? I am interested to see what long term effects that has on a dog and their ability to fit into a normal family life.

RSPCA Qld has anecdotal evidence spanning years of seizing puppies & dogs from the horrific 'establishments' that have turned up in Qld. They found, early on, that these animals had ongoing psychological troubles that were less open to being 'fixed' than physical problems. Which is why they were stressing the need for socialisation.....parent dogs & well as puppies....way, way back.

I know a case of a tibbie rescued as a puppy from one of the worst, up north. She was rehomed by the RSPCA with a wonderful pet family & is mature age now. She has never, ever changed from being made terribly anxious to the point of panic, by anything new

I don't know if there's any scientifically organised studies. But I do know that there's been studies which show that puppies are more likely to have problems like aggression, if the mother dog is not socialised. Looks like 'mum as model' starts from the very beginning with puppies.

[Mags]

Has there been any studies on puppies bought from puppy farm and then raised as a family pet? I am interested to see what long term effects that has on a dog and their ability to fit into a normal family life.

Me too as this you would think is the comparison that needs to be made if you want to claim puppy farmed dogs do not make good companions compared to those raised by reputable breeders.

[mita]

The study showed that lack of socialisation in the large, clean, law-abiding commercial breeding places, caused on-going psychological problems for dogs who then went to live in pet homes. Just the same as for dogs going on to pet homes from the filthy, inhumane places.

Which means neither place has a leg to stand on, in terms of that critical welfare need.....socialisation.

Especially as there is evidence that puppies do less well in terms of behaviours if the mother dog is not socialised. Seems like unsocialised breeding stock is all that exists in both the clean and filthy large breeding establisments. Not much chance for their puppies to have models:

Anecdotal evidence has long suggested that lacking normal human contact and living with the pain and discomfort that are systemic in puppy mills leave these dogs with post-trauma-like behaviors. This is the first large study comparing mill survivors to dogs raised in homes.

The study compared owner-reported psychological and behavioral characteristics of 1,169 former breeding dogs recovered from puppy mills with those of 332 pet dogs without the mill history.

The dogs from puppy mills showed significantly elevated levels of fears and phobias, compulsive and repetitive behaviors, and heightened sensitivity to being touched.

"The most prominent difference was in the level of fear," says McMillan. "Compared to normal pet dogs, the chance of scoring in the highest ranges for fear was six to eight times higher in the recovered puppy-mill dogs."

The behavioral differences within that group existed whether they came from filthy, inhumane puppy farms or from cleaner, law-abiding large commercial breeding operations that have sought to separate themselves from the more unsavory breeders, McMillan says.

Edited October 15, 2011 by mita