I think a lot of the mills and breeders with no other in mind than making money would be weeded out.
FIRST THING:
Keep in mind that one of the main factors that makes milling, pet shops, and all the rest of that crap PROFITABLE for these disgusting people
is the AKC. And laws that would require licensing and inspections, etc., based on stringent enough guidelines to put mills and unscrupulous breeders out of business are going to substantially affect the AKC's bottom line, because those mills aren't going to be sending in their inflated-to-the-customer-forward-the-actual-AKC fees anymore.
And AKC is a big enough corporation with a strong enough
brand identity to keep this kind of law from ever passing. (Note that I said brand identity, not brand policy!)
See, most people--even a large percentage of pet owners--don't realize that AKC is just a business, and that as a business, AKC is NOT concerned with the health or welfare of the breeds/dogs it purports to represent, but ONLY with it's company bottom line. It's not a charity, and the fact that it's a non-profit only means that it can't SHOW a profit--which mean that they can spend a lot of money on advertising and offices. (I know. I worked for a non-profit. You'd be utterly astounded at the end of year 'sprees' that were encouraged by senior management in some departments, just to make sure that they 'used up our budget' every year. And look at some of the scandals the Red Cross, another notorious 'non-profit' keeps having!)
You and I know that AKC leaves it to the breed clubs (who only responsible owners or breeders belong to!) to be concerned with genetics and health issues. But there are thousands of "AKC" dogs that are bred that the clubs know NOTHING about, because the millers and the profiteers deliberately stay away from the breed clubs!
Most people see "AKC" only as the people who put on the Animal Planet shows with those beautiful dogs. Those 'best of group' dogs competing for best of show! Of course they're beautiful and healthy--or at least the LOOK like they are.
I think it would be a FASCINATING study if someone who's really good at forensic accounting did a serious study of the AKC's finances over the last 20 years. I'll would bet actual money that if a really, seriously honest audit were done, it would show that most of AKC's registration fees/money comes from 'mill pup' registrations, NOT from serious, responsible breeder pups.
BACK TO THE POINT:
If there's ever going to be a workable 'compulsory' solution it's going to 1) have to come out of the veterinary association/establishment, 2) have to be cheaper for owners and more bottom line profitable for vets, and 3) have to be more convenient than the current standard solutions of spay/neuter surgery.
The veterinary establishment should be working on a serious, NON SURGICAL spay/neuter program.
There's a shot out there now for males--you can get it done at some Petsmarts--but there's nothing that I've read indicating that they're even working on anything on a large scale for our girls, which is very strange. You'd think that before they started doing 'clip ligations' on human that the FDA would have required SOME kind of animal testing results that vets could have used to develop a similar procedure. In fact, I'm surprised that there aren't studies of clip ligation IN dogs out there to read online!
I would think that it would be FAR preferable to do a quick laprascopic placement of clips on a puppy's tubes at 6-10 weeks old than to slit one wide open and remove a chunk of her anatomy at six months!
Clip ligations for humans can be done under LOCAL aneshetic--isn't that preferable to putting a dog under a general for a spay??
If clips could be placed inexpensively for female pups it might well become the standard for a good breeder to have it done before a pup goes home--yet another way to tell the responsible breeder from the profiteer! And if it turns out that a 'pet' pup is an exceptional breed example whose genetics should be propogated, this way her genetics have been preserved--I KNOW that there were studies in invitro done in dogs, and that it works. And I can think of a half dozen healthy, well-tempered, hip, eye and heart-sound dogs that would have added a LOT to their gene pools if they hadn't been judged "not show quality" and spayed/neutered as pups!
So why aren't vets working on clip ligations, as an alternative to the surgical spay/neuter? I have to wonder.
What I know is that one reason my research is tending me toward having a male when the time comes is that I'm just not at all thrilled by the prospect of having my baby drugged into unconsciousnes
s, slit open and eviscerated! It's probably because I'm a woman; but it seems like there's got to be a less...invasiv
e...solution.
